big j 33
Supporter
- 36,028
- 16,779
The only name I could see Carrell replacing is Cranston.. and that's only because I never saw Trumbo.
Oh I'm sorry, Did I Break Your Conversation........Well Allow Me A Movie Thread by S&T
- 36,045
- 12,024
other than possibly hateful eight, there are no better options for best picture than mad max
- 36,045
- 12,024
del toro should replace hardy for best supporting
sicaro should replace revenant for best picture
sicaro should replace revenant for best picture
- 35,468
- 77,992
I loved Sicario, but disagree with this
big j 33
Supporter
- 36,028
- 16,779
Mad Max deserves the praise and it's a technical achievement, but I'd pick Spotlight and The Big Short every time over Mad Max. It won't be a travesty when it loses, either.
- 36,045
- 12,024
yeah I would not be upset if either of those won over mad max
I just think mad max was the better film over big short, even though I probably found big short just as interesting/entertaining
- 36,045
- 12,024
the two style over substance movies of the yearI loved Sicario, but disagree with this
sicario had way more substance and the great cinematography was used to tell the story rather than show off
- 87,866
- 50,387
@ The Revenant not having substance but then again we went over this with Sicario.
Last edited:
- 53,484
- 21,063
I watched sicario with my brother and he hated it. I thought it was pretty good. Del Toro's savagery is always entertaining to me and Emily Blunt was looking fine.
- 36,045
- 12,024
its almost 3 hours of leo grunting and tom hardy mumbling with great cinematography thrown in to keep people entertained@ The Revenant not having substance but then again we went over this with Sicario.
- 7,339
- 12,146
The Revenant was dope to me. It's not for everybody i guess
Last edited:
- 87,866
- 50,387
Again if that's what you want to to try and whittle the movie down to and ignore the story sure you could say that but you can do that with any movie.its almost 3 hours of leo grunting and tom hardy mumbling with great cinematography thrown in to keep people entertained
You have to mention the movie is almost 3 hrs but are trying to stick with it being style over substance
This aint Gravity or Avatar. You're the only person I've heard say the movie bored you for 2 hrs but you stayed for the cinematography That don't' make sense.Mad Max was just a lot of yelling, killing, explosions and chasing each other in cars.
Jobs was just the same 3-4 ppl arguing over and over.
Last edited:
- 36,045
- 12,024
like with sicario if I rewatch the movie I will be looking forward to character moments
when they are at the mexico border
when del toro asserts his dominance in the torture room
the climax with del toro
the end confrontation between blunt and del toro
all these great moments are great because of the characters, and there are enough interesting moments in the film to watch the whole thing through
when I rewatch revenant its literally only for cinematic moments
the first indian attack with the tracking shot
the CGI bear attack
tracking shot of indians attacking, leo gets on horse and falls off cliff.
any part where it's just about the characters, skip.
none of these things have anything to do with character or story, I'm interested in seeing them because i'm a fan of filmmaking and the execution it takes to create these shots.
when they are at the mexico border
when del toro asserts his dominance in the torture room
the climax with del toro
the end confrontation between blunt and del toro
all these great moments are great because of the characters, and there are enough interesting moments in the film to watch the whole thing through
when I rewatch revenant its literally only for cinematic moments
the first indian attack with the tracking shot
the CGI bear attack
tracking shot of indians attacking, leo gets on horse and falls off cliff.
any part where it's just about the characters, skip.
none of these things have anything to do with character or story, I'm interested in seeing them because i'm a fan of filmmaking and the execution it takes to create these shots.
Jobs was interesting in that, it was literally 3 scenes, wasn't it? Almost like a play, on film, over 10-15 years, etc.
Scene 1, Jobs argues with 4-5-6 people in a room, 30+ minutes, end.
Scene 2, Jobs argues with 4-5-6 people in a different room, 30+ minutes, end.
Scene 3, etc etc etc.
Yet....it worked? I was interested the whole time. I almost look at it like taking this Jobs, and the Ashton Kutcher films and combine them to get a fuller picture of him, and it still doesn't really explain much about him.
Scene 1, Jobs argues with 4-5-6 people in a room, 30+ minutes, end.
Scene 2, Jobs argues with 4-5-6 people in a different room, 30+ minutes, end.
Scene 3, etc etc etc.
Yet....it worked? I was interested the whole time. I almost look at it like taking this Jobs, and the Ashton Kutcher films and combine them to get a fuller picture of him, and it still doesn't really explain much about him.
- 35,468
- 77,992
The Sicario "extradition" scene from the convoy in and out of Mexico to the battle scene at the border was
Great shots throughout. That few minutes was intense.
As far as the Revenant, maybe some of the characters lacked substance (not sure if it was intentional or not), but the story and themes certainly didn't. I mean, it was a survival/revenge story. What specifically did it lack in your opinion?
- 87,866
- 50,387
That's your choice b.
You didn't like the character moments. You're choosing to skip them.
Saying a movie is style over substance means it was void of substance. The director aimed to focus solely on the look of the movie and not the story.
I don't see how you can say Inarritu did that with The Revenant.
big j 33
Supporter
- 36,028
- 16,779
I think sea manup and I went back and forth with something similar awhile ago.. but just because you didn't like or those things didn't resonate with you, doesn't mean they weren't there. One doesn't have to dismiss something just because you didn't like it. There can still be a ton of great substance in the movie, even without the characters be interesting to you.
...
Steve Jobs had a ton of scenes, but only a few sets/locations. Every time we see a new location/room/whatever, that's a new scene. Jobs talking to Woz in the orchestra is one scene, Jobs walking and talking with Kate Winstlet is another, etc., it's just in the same location. They also used the flashback scenes really well to mix things up.
It's a shame it won't get the attention because Boyle and Sorkin really did a great job with it. I thought it was one of Sorkin's best scripts and Boyle's direction and ability to make such a unique structure work and be captivating should be praised. I think it came out a bit too early and didn't get the overwhelming love and support of other contenders.
...
Steve Jobs had a ton of scenes, but only a few sets/locations. Every time we see a new location/room/whatever, that's a new scene. Jobs talking to Woz in the orchestra is one scene, Jobs walking and talking with Kate Winstlet is another, etc., it's just in the same location. They also used the flashback scenes really well to mix things up.
It's a shame it won't get the attention because Boyle and Sorkin really did a great job with it. I thought it was one of Sorkin's best scripts and Boyle's direction and ability to make such a unique structure work and be captivating should be praised. I think it came out a bit too early and didn't get the overwhelming love and support of other contenders.
- 87,866
- 50,387
I mean if you get to the core of it the only 2 characters are Hardy's and Leo's. Then there's the son, the one young guy that went along with it, and Gleeson's character was in charge. To me they gave you enough of the last two. Gleeson's character was honorable and was clearly about justice and that young guy was clearly a good kid but gullible and a bit of a coward. They could've gave us more of the son but they did establish his relationship with his father.
The Sicario "extradition" scene from the convoy in and out of Mexico to the battle scene at the border was
Great shots throughout. That few minutes was intense.
As far as the Revenant, maybe some of the characters lacked substance (not sure if it was intentional or not), but the story and themes certainly didn't. I mean, it was a survival/revenge story. What specifically did it lack in your opinion?
The story was about a dude dealing with the loss of his wife, then his son, and getting revenge while on the flip it shows a greedy selfish dude that was really ruthless. The 2 other big story elements or characters in this story are based on setting; the natives in the area battling with the frontiersmen and the nature.
I think that's cuz they were backed up going through so many names attached for the lead and director. At the end they just had to get it out if they didn't want to lose more money.
Last edited:
Clyde Frog
formerly jay02
- 12,617
- 7,475
When I watched the Revenant I was almost distracted by how much of a ***** it had to be to film that movie. So cold. Soooo cold.
MVP
Supporter
- 83,008
- 85,584
Was damn sure a lot better than Star Wars
[quote name=[S]"Mamba MVP" [/S]url="/t/287925/oh-im-sorry-did-i-break-your-conversation-well-allow-me-a-movie-thread-by-s-t/49140_20#post_24970530"]
Was damn sure a lot better than Star Wars[/quote]
- 36,045
- 12,024
Gleesons character in revenant was enjoyable, very one dimensional but for his role in the story that's perfectly fine.
Leo did his best in the role but there really wasn't much range to the role. Before the bear attack he didn't have any personality, after the bear attack he was either struggle or out for revenge.
On the other hand in a movie like the Martian, Matt Damon has to show excitement, depression, Hopelessness, hopefulness, sarcasm, humour, problem solving.
In Steve jobs in the span of 10 minutes fassbender goes from thinking he's a god when talking to engineers, asking for advice on how to interact with his kid, getting mad at things not going right, acting like a father to interacting with Jeff Daniels who is the only person more powerful than he is. So many different character relations and dynamics for him to navigate through the role which makes for an interesting character.
I feel like I know more about the character of Poe in his 15 minutes of screen time than Leo who had at least a hour
Leo did his best in the role but there really wasn't much range to the role. Before the bear attack he didn't have any personality, after the bear attack he was either struggle or out for revenge.
On the other hand in a movie like the Martian, Matt Damon has to show excitement, depression, Hopelessness, hopefulness, sarcasm, humour, problem solving.
In Steve jobs in the span of 10 minutes fassbender goes from thinking he's a god when talking to engineers, asking for advice on how to interact with his kid, getting mad at things not going right, acting like a father to interacting with Jeff Daniels who is the only person more powerful than he is. So many different character relations and dynamics for him to navigate through the role which makes for an interesting character.
I feel like I know more about the character of Poe in his 15 minutes of screen time than Leo who had at least a hour
- 87,866
- 50,387
I was way more bored with The Martian than Leo in The Revenant.
The Martian was a movie that went on too long like I said in my review. I was just way more engaged with TR's story than TM's.
Like you're talking about the range the two had and the amount of emotions Damon had to display but honestly I'd take the handful of emotions Leo had to use over Damon's.
More emotional states do not necessarily make the better performance. Sometimes you can do a few so good that it'll overshadow the next man's doing a lot.
If you don't know about Leo's character in TR I don't know what to tell you. Probably not to watch it again cuz you were bored but if you were paying attention to all the scenes when he dreamt/hallucinated about his wife you got a good explanation of his back story as far as his relationship with his late wife, son, etc.
But hey we all take different things from characters and stories.
The Martian was a movie that went on too long like I said in my review. I was just way more engaged with TR's story than TM's.
Like you're talking about the range the two had and the amount of emotions Damon had to display but honestly I'd take the handful of emotions Leo had to use over Damon's.
More emotional states do not necessarily make the better performance. Sometimes you can do a few so good that it'll overshadow the next man's doing a lot.
If you don't know about Leo's character in TR I don't know what to tell you. Probably not to watch it again cuz you were bored but if you were paying attention to all the scenes when he dreamt/hallucinated about his wife you got a good explanation of his back story as far as his relationship with his late wife, son, etc.
But hey we all take different things from characters and stories.
Last edited:
- 16,544
- 21,141
watched the visit. did it have creepy moments? yes. was it a good movie? not really. that little boy rapping was horrible. that little boy approached young kid annakin levels of crappy acting.
