The Criterion Collection

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by jshaide

It's not going to win. Sadly. Of the nominees, it should.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Will have to make it a point to see Moonlight, but Manchester By The Sea is a beautiful film.

I haven't seen Moonlight, so can't really comment on its quality. It just didn't seem to be something that would engage me. Of the films I've seen, La La Land is probably the most memorable as far as being that film that just sticks with me.

One of the films I adored, The Neon Demon, stood absolutely zero chance at a nomination. Another, Nocturnal Animals, stood very little chance and was in fact shut out except for Michael Shannon. I was glad to see Manchester by the Sea get love, since it's indeed a beautiful film with excellent performances across the board.

But it's all irrelevant since this is obviously The Year of La La Land.

[KyleW]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I haven't seen Moonlight, so can't really comment on its quality. It just didn't seem to be something that would engage me. Of the films I've seen, La La Land is probably the most memorable as far as being that film that just sticks with me.



One of the films I adored, The Neon Demon, stood absolutely zero chance at a nomination. Another, Nocturnal Animals, stood very little chance and was in fact shut out except for Michael Shannon. I was glad to see Manchester by the Sea get love, since it's indeed a beautiful film with excellent performances across the board.



But it's all irrelevant since this is obviously The Year of La La Land.

Unfortunately you are right it is the year of La La Land. Moonlight deserves all the awards but Manchester deserves screenplay and best actor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thatguamguy]

I thought it was nice that the kid from "Manchester" got nominated, but the third of the three guys in "Moonlight" gave the best performance of the year, period, and the fact that not even the critics got behind him annoyed me to no end.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I haven't seen Moonlight, so can't really comment on its quality. It just didn't seem to be something that would engage me. Of the films I've seen, La La Land is probably the most memorable as far as being that film that just sticks with me.

One of the films I adored, The Neon Demon, stood absolutely zero chance at a nomination. Another, Nocturnal Animals, stood very little chance and was in fact shut out except for Michael Shannon. I was glad to see Manchester by the Sea get love, since it's indeed a beautiful film with excellent performances across the board.

But it's all irrelevant since this is obviously The Year of La La Land.

I liked La La Land, but thought that opening sequence was brutal. I was prepared to suggest to my wife that we walk out. I'm glad we didnt because it redeems itself and then some, but that opening number didn't seem to fit - like listening to a good album with a piss poor opening track.

[KyleW]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I liked La La Land, but thought that opening sequence was brutal. I was prepared to suggest to my wife that we walk out. I'm glad we didnt because it redeems itself and then some, but that opening number didn't seem to fit - like listening to a good album with a piss poor opening track.

It was technically impressive but definitely didn't add anything to the movie. Looked like it was a commercial or something and a really annoying song. My main issue with La La Land is the whole white savior jazz problem it has. And also the fact that Whiplash is 100 times the movie La La Land is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by KyleW

My main issue with La La Land is the whole white savior jazz problem it has.

I think it avoids the usual "white savior" problems for me because he is only saving jazz in his own mind, nobody else's. Jazz needs to be saved, but it never feels to me like the movie is endorsing his belief that he can save it. But it's a valid point.

[Hoke Moseley]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I thought it was nice that the kid from "Manchester" got nominated, but the third of the three guys in "Moonlight" gave the best performance of the year, period, and the fact that not even the critics got behind him annoyed me to no end.

Agreed. No critical support for either Rhodes or Holland is baffling. Ali was fantastic, but they should have spread the wealth with the supporting actors in the film. Even the teenage Chiron was worthy.

[thatguamguy]

Before I saw it, I wasn't paying a lot of attention to who was getting the buzz from it, and then after I saw it, I just assumed it was the last guy because he was so terrific. Nothing against the two younger versions of the same character, both great performances for anybody especially a kid, just that the last guy managed to play *both* those parts and his own part all at the same time. Ali is very very good, but it is a lot easier to act emotional in response to that little kid than it is to suddenly lose twenty years in an instant and BECOME the little kid on camera with no dialogue. I think he got the attention because he is a hot up-and-coming name, I expect that sort of thing of the Academy, but critics are supposed to be better than that.

[zackisthewalrus]

Originally Posted by KyleW

My main issue with La La Land is the whole white savior jazz problem it has.

The thing that helps me avoid this idea is that

[Show spoiler] he gets called out by Keith who basically says "you want jazz to stay alive, but you're too traditional - you have to let it grow and evolve," and he understands the history and the culture of jazz. Also, anytime he shares jazz, it's through the people who are part of the culture who created it (in that, all of the people who are playing/working at the club at the end are people of color).

I can see why people think it's a white savior complex film, but I just don't agree. I think

[Show spoiler]by the end, he's just sharing jazz in his club because he loves it. You don't get the feeling at the end that the club exists to "save jazz".

[Reddington]

I've never watched one of the "Criterion Closet" videos, but always assumed the guest was really just picking out favourites to share with the audience. But are they actually "shopping?" I suppose I thought that those who merit a visit to the closet would already have the Criterion release of their favourites in the collection.

Apologies if I've embarrassed myself...

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by KyleW

It was technically impressive but definitely didn't add anything to the movie. Looked like it was a commercial or something and a really annoying song. My main issue with La La Land is the whole white savior jazz problem it has. And also the fact that Whiplash is 100 times the movie La La Land is. k

They are both absurdly overrated films, but I definitely preferred Whiplash.

I'm glad Lonergan was nominated, even though I haven't seen Manchester. I'm in no rush to see it, but he shouldn't be relegated to the sidelines. After the Margaret fiasco he desperately needed a hit and I'm glad Manchester has been successful.

Mel's nomination was pleasing too.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Reddington

I've never watched one of the "Criterion Closet" videos, but always assumed the guest was really just picking out favourites to share with the audience. But are they actually "shopping?" I suppose I thought that those who merit a visit to the closet would already have the Criterion release of their favourites in the collection.

Apologies if I've embarrassed myself...

I've often wondered that myself, but you would be surprised how many actors and film makers don't care to own and/or rewatch films, especially if they are Hollywood types with busy schedules.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

One of the films I adored, The Neon Demon, stood absolutely zero chance at a nomination.

That's only because Most Disturbing Picture isn't one of the awards.

It would have been a shoo-in.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Arawn

That's only because Most Disturbing Picture isn't one of the awards.

It would have been a shoo-in.

Yeah, there would have been no reason to even nominate other films.

But I guess a film that features

[Show spoiler]lesbian necrophilia, cannibalism, someone throwing up a victim's body part, etc.

it's probably not on a lot of Academy voters' lists.

I thought it was brilliant. Then again, I think that people don't get NWR's humor sometimes. You can tell from the commentary on the Blu-ray that he and Elle Fanning had a real blast making the movie, in great part because of how twisted and demented it was. They are laughing a lot during the commentary.

[malakaheso]

They don't 'get' his humour because it doesn't add much to the overall experience and isn't clever. It's shallow gallows humour. The best laughs in his films are always unintentional.

It really blows me away that people think he is a great film maker. It has all been done before and his visual style is so overpraised. There is nothing aesthetically challenging about what he does. Compared to other provocative film makers like Noe he is so obvious and predictable. I never once question how he pulled off a shot or how he thought of it because I probably already know the answer.

I'll give him credit for the ridiculous psycho-sexual aspects of Only God Forgives though. That took some balls, and it is knowingly ridiculous, but The Neon Demon, in my view, is complete junk and easily the worst film I've seen of his to date.

Each to their own.

[Hoke Moseley]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

One of the films I adored, The Neon Demon, stood absolutely zero chance at a nomination.

Cliff Martinez really should have been in the conversation for that.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

Cliff Martinez really should have been in the conversation for that.

Yes he absolutely should have. I keep listening to that score, and it's a shame that the content of the film -- IMO anyways -- killed his chances. It's brilliant.

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

I've often wondered that myself, but you would be surprised how many actors and film makers don't care to own and/or rewatch films, especially if they are Hollywood types with busy schedules.

Your post reminded me of this cool article I read a few years ago about Mark Ruffalo and Catherine Keener recommending and buying movies for Hailee Steinfeld when they were all working together on "Begin Again."

This is a really great read:

http://ew.com/article/2014/06/20/26-...ress-must-see/

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

They don't 'get' his humour because it doesn't add much to the overall experience and isn't clever. It's shallow gallows humour. The best laughs in his films are always unintentional.

It really blows me away that people think he is a great film maker. It has all been done before and his visual style is so overpraised. There is nothing aesthetically challenging about what he does. Compared to other provocative film makers like Noe he is so obvious and predictable. I never once question how he pulled off a shot or how he thought of it because I probably already know the answer.

I'll give him credit for the ridiculous psycho-sexual aspects of Only God Forgives though. That took some balls, and it is knowingly ridiculous, but The Neon Demon, in my view, is complete junk and easily the worst film I've seen of his to date.

Each to their own.

What, exactly, is unintentionally funny in Neon Demon?

Where, exactly, has the material in Neon Demon been done before? I saw a bunch of Argento comparisons, but having SEEN almost all of Argento's movies, I went in specifically looking for it and didn't see much of anything. I think a bunch of them were from people that have only seen Suspiria and were like "uhh...vivid colored lighting schemes, woman going to artistic place that turns out to be dangerous and evil, that's just like the only Argento movie I know!!! I'll drop his name to look smart!!!"

When people make statements like this and I honestly don't know what they're referring to, I like to get clarification. Such very definite statements must have backup, and I'm curious what it is. I REALLY hated Only God Forgives, but I liked this a fair amount, and I really don't know what else is directly comparable and has done all the same things before. The only thing I can think of I've seen somewhat recently with comparable visual style was Crimes of Passion, but it wasn't really the same kind of thing. And as for "what's unintentionally funny," I found several sections funny, but it seemed like it was supposed to be that kind of over-the-top style that was intentionally pushing into the funny area. Ex, everything Keanu Reeves did, or all the really gross stuff at the end.

[malakaheso]

Cake, the visuals are derivative of a whole bunch of directors from giallo directors right through to Lynch. They just aren't interesting to me. They are attractive in a really mundane uncreative way. He is like Tarantino: a colllage artist. His films are the by-product of watching other films.

The concept itself is just obvious and boring. There is nothing challenging about it. If it was a complete farce it could have worked, but that isn't the tone Refn was going for even if there are satirical elements.

The acting was also bad to me, including Fanning, although she was less terrible than some other performers. I don't mind bad acting in these kind of films, but it has to be purposeful.

To me Refn falls in that awkward middle area where he isn't really artistic enough to praise but his films don't really offer the complete pleasures of typical genre fare. This is probably what his fans like, but to me it just isn't particularly exciting or interesting. If you find intellectual content in his films more power to you. To me he is just pretentious and vapid. And I don't use the pretension criticism often.

And yes, Reeves was amusing - intentionally. I'll give you that.