Search this Topic:
11/19/11 09:53 AM
11/19/11 10:48 AM
bianca436 wrote:but 99% reused footage, which may be it's downfall in the academy's eyes
11/19/11 01:31 PM
SurvivorSurvivorSurvivor wrote:I dunno, Sherman's March....
I think Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory will win the Best Documentary award. It has the feel-good story going and the previous documentaries helped get these guys out of prison for a crime they clearly didn't commit. Plus, a lot of other would-be contenders aren't even on the shortlist, so....
11/19/11 03:21 PM
midnightproblay wrote:I think they definitely know about the remarks. They were a big news story. I overheard even the most random people talking about it back in May. But, I think that von Trier genuinely doesn't care about Oscars. If he did, you wouldn't see him making Dogville or Antichrist. But the comments, though stupid, were totally harmless and it's very odd to me that it became such a controversy. Obviously it being in France fueled it a bit, but Americans don't have that same history.
11/19/11 08:48 PM
I would guess you're probably right, but there are a number of voters who don't really "care" as much about the Oscars as people in this thread and other sites. However, those same people probably wouldn't even know Melancholia existed. Fact remains, though, that his films aren't anti-Jewish/pro-Nazi. Melancholia's probably his best film ever.
11/19/11 11:15 PM
11/20/11 02:54 AM
11/20/11 02:11 PM
11/20/11 07:17 PM
11/20/11 08:06 PM
11/21/11 12:01 AM
11/21/11 02:17 AM
11/21/11 10:24 AM
11/21/11 05:33 PM
Mister Plum wrote:
Visual movie indeed! The river scene? Fantastic.
11/21/11 06:24 PM
11/21/11 10:06 PM
I have to leave for two screenings in 30 minutes for I'm just going
to paste what I wrote to some journalist friends a little while ago
about The Iron Lady, which I feel is an acceptably okay and
sometimes better-than-okay biopic with a curious emphasis on the
destination rather than the journey. Here it is:
"Am I wrong or is at least 45% of The Iron Lady about
octagenerian Maggie (superbly played by Streep and assisted by a
first-rate makeup job -- much better than Leo's old-age makeup in J.
Edgar)), 45% about Maggie in her political prime (Streep again, guns
blazing) and 10% about very young Maggie (Alexandra Roach) and young Denis Thatcher (Harry Lloyd)?
"I didn't clock it but I was almost amazed that so much of the film
is about the ravages of age and coping with senility and delusion. I
mean, the film keeps going back to withered old Maggie as she probably
is right now, over and over and over. I think this was thrown in as (a)
a sympathy ploy to get the audience on Maggie's side and (b) to hand
Meryl a juicy acting opportunity for Meryl to play both a proud
stubborn woman suffering the inevitable decline along with her
middle-aged Maggie standing up to British male chauvinism, and in so
doing cinch up that Best Actress Oscar.
"I honestly think that Viola Davis's chances are lower now. I think
Glenn Close's nomination (assuming it happens) is going to be the
tribute she's looking for, and that's all. It's Streep vs. Williams, as
far as I can foresee. Am I wrong?
"Apart from Streep's impersonation of Lady Thatcher being absolutely
delicious (but then you knew that) and the film applying a kind of
suppressive gloss on Thatcher's generally cruel, heartless policies and a
cynical ploy (I believe) to distract the nation from domestic issues
and ensure her reelection by going to war against Argentina, I actually
thought the film on its own terms was somewhere between half-decent and
pretty good....if a bit curious. At the very least it's far from the
boilerplate biopic I expected, and I rather enjoyed the boldness of
"I must say I was surprised and almost shocked by
the emphasis on the old, withered, hallucinating Thatcher, coping with
the ravages of old age, veering in and out of senility and lucidity,
etc. It's odd that so much screen time to given to this portion of her
life as there's really nowhere to go with it (except, I suppose, into
the issue of Maggie trying to eradicate her hallucinations of last
husband Dennis(Jiom Broadbent), but that was the choice.
"The Maggie-in-her-prime-as-Prime-Minister stuff is good enough.
It's fine, I mean. Assured, comprehensive, disciplined, well-shaped and
nicely paced. But it also feels a teeny bit rote and rushed at times.
"All in all it's a rather lamenting and bittersweet drama about life
slipping away, drop by drop, at the end of the road, and also, I have to
say, a stirring feminist piece and an effective delivery of
conservative propaganda. If you have any backbone and toughness in you,
if you've trusted and relied upon yourself to get out there and shape
your life into something, and if you feel anything for the plight of
women being marginalized and patronized by male chauvinist pigs, then
the movie is somewhat moving. It just is. I know there are a lot of
lefties out there who will hate it because it doesn't condemn Thatcher
But the bottom line is that Streep is so good she made he chuckle
with pleasure from time to time. You're saying to yourself over and
over, 'Oh, God...this is so good, so amazing.'
"The octagenarian Maggie stuff, as noted, has been emphasized, I
believe, to create a sense of sympathy for the character, as her mind
and senses are clearly going bit by bit and without this tragic
falling-apartat-the-end she'd be a cold, flinty harridan. If the movie
was all about Maggie in her prime, the character would be admired for
her brass balls but wouldn't be very likable, and might be seen as the
out-and-out monster that her detractors call her, and the movie
wouldn't, in all likelihood, do as well as the box-office.
Olivia Colman (Tyrannosaur) is quite believable as Thatcher's
daughter Carol (I barely recognized her due to a wig and prosthetics)
and the young Margaret actress (Ms. Roach) is also quite impressive. I'm
not entirely sure about Jim Broadbent's Denis. His goofy,
spectacle-enlarged eyes made him look like the guy who spoofed him at
the end of For Your Eyes Only ('82).
11/21/11 11:52 PM
11/22/11 12:00 AM
11/22/11 12:05 AM
midnightproblay wrote:Yeah... maybe we just have different philosophies, but I never ask those questions if it's clear that that's not at all what the movie's about. Like, it's not a movie about Justine's childhood and what she does for a living. It's film about her depression during an impending apocalypse (ditto for Claire, although replace depression with anxiety). You're not the only one to talk about Aunt Steelbreaker, but I think that's kind of random and unnecessary nitpicking. Why do we need exposition for that? Why can't the fact that that's what he called her be exposition in and of itself, allowing us to develop our own interpretation? We already know a lot of stuff about her, especially regarding her work ethic.And of course, Kirsten Dunst was just so damn good in it, it really makes me care less about some missing exposition.
11/22/11 12:12 AM
Share This Link
Message board courtesy of Survivor Sucks member support.
Benevolent dictatorship courtesy of Survivor Sucks Admin Idoits.
© 2013 Yuku. All rights reserved.