The Movie House - Part 11

M99 wrote:Personal insults when you have nothing else to say but the same tripe you repeat like a broken record, of fucking course

you say that like you and freeza have never personally insulted me. Unreal

[adm]Return to the topic lads or there will be consequences.[/adm]

If anyone likes films with lots of violence and gore check out a film called would you rather. It's low budget but it's still fun.

Once Upon a Time was pretty fun in the second half but the first half often feels so aimless. It's too long.

Cut like 30-45 minutes out of the first half imo. Maybe I didn't get it.

Or just focus the movie more on Brad Pitt. Every scene with him was awesome. DiCaprio was decent but Pitt was incredible.

Freeza wrote:

The last part has little to do with my point but if we are discussing that then I do not have any such thoughts. Some viewers simply do not focus on such things as diversity or the sex of one who is directing it. The awards by this point are barely paid attention to compared to before so if they merit their critical review that is far more lasting in a very open and aware social internet culture than some awards that have lost their meaning.

Kat Bigelow won (for Hurt Locker) over Jason Reitman for Up in the Air to which I found it was directing better despite Hurt Locker itself better as a whole.

Did I slam my fist onto my table crying sexism like those pathetic MRA activists? No. I recognised close choices are subjective despite art itself being far more objective than many would argue. If one was irate the fact that a woman won Best Director then yes that is something that should not be taken seriously.

I am not to be confused with what you stand against.

Yeah, Arq, that last part wasn't really directed at you, but more directed at what I've seen on various message boards, IRL and sometimes on here by some poster(s).

My main point is that the industry doesn't give enough opportunities to non-white people. Patty Jenkins is an example of someone who had to fight for 15 years to make another movie after she directed Charlize Theron to an Oscar. I have a hard time coming up with a man who would've not had a movie in production right away after a succes like that.
___

And regarding Jason Reitman, I really disagree. I wouldn't have given it to Bigelow either. But I'd have gone for Tarantino instead (not exactly the most socially "concious" pick) because his taste is more suited to me.

I want a voting body to be as diverse as possible. As long as it reflects the demograhics of the place it represents. A Danish voting body should mainly be white, as we are a very white country in general.

And if a film festival for disabled people should have a voting body, then it would make sense they'd represent exactly that.

And the Academy represents the US, and peripherally the world, so they should reflect that, more than they already do.

Reitman I meant purely for a directorial perspective and not for the film as a whole for I am sure you too know the difference between good directing and a great film as a whole. This one can be subjective given the vast differences of the two named films of course. Tarantino films are great but he has a very talented staff around him that does much of the work for him as Ive begun to have my problems with him purely as a director for a while now, though yet to see his latest.

I find it an interesting perspective from you, that the voting body should represent the demographic of the place as while I do not necessarily agree but that is more due to the fact that you feel more strongly of these things and it is your cause I have noticed, clearly without any personal agenda for yourself. Never really thought of it that way, the voting body demographic part and your objectivity on the mention for Danmark itself definitely adds weight to your debate, thus you cannot be accused of double standards.

With the changes in Hollywood to which are far more politically sensitive and race recognition improving, its only a matter of time these ageing voting boards will be replenished surely with a far more diverse body and that is inevitable given the direction of the industry.

El Gunner wrote:^^ you find it only interesting and not to be the most reasonable move?? I thought you were more intelligent.

@CB DiCaprio is the protagonist in the film, the entire movie revolves around his story of a fading Hollywood star.
And I'm not taking any of this bullshit that Pitt was far better than him in the film.

And I am in strong conviction that you are more intelligent than assume that I have no other such developing thoughts than just finding it interesting, to which is a compliment to an idea I simply have not thought of but I simply do not think of awards of the board etc similar to how I do not care for FIFA/UEFA politics, but purely the game. I do not support the film industry in the United States as a whole given it is a very dark and corrupt industry that is believe it or not, losing the interest of the public slowly.

El Gunner wrote:
@CB DiCaprio is the protagonist in the film, the entire movie revolves around his story of a fading Hollywood star.
And I'm not taking any of this bullshit that Pitt was far better than him in the film.

100% with ElGee here. Pitt's character is an awesome badass cool guy. Brad Pitt does an awesome job conveying that but he's Brad Pitt and he's cool as fuck himself so he's mostly just playing himself. It's way more impressive the character DiCaprio is playing.

DiCaprio's acting > Pitt's acting in this movie.

Don't call me James wrote:

El Gunner wrote:
@CB DiCaprio is the protagonist in the film, the entire movie revolves around his story of a fading Hollywood star.
And I'm not taking any of this bullshit that Pitt was far better than him in the film.

100% with ElGee here. Pitt's character is an awesome badass cool guy. Brad Pitt does an awesome job conveying that but he's Brad Pitt and he's cool as fuck himself so he's mostly just playing himself. It's way more impressive the character DiCaprio is playing.

DiCaprio's acting > Pitt's acting in this movie.

0% with ElGee here. DiCaprio's character is an over the top melt with an alcohol problem. DiCaprio does an awesome job conveying that but he's Leonardo DiCaprio and he's over the top as fuck himself so he's mostly just playing himself. It's way more impressive the character Brad Pitt is playing.

Pitt's acting > Dicaprio's acting in this movie.

Team Freeza on this one i am afraid. I enjoyed Pitt a lot more in it. I didn't think DiCaprio gave an exceptional performance. It was great by his usual standards but Pitt was more of a standout.

Really odd no one seems to mention DiCaprio plays mostly himself in most films bar exceptions like Aviator, Revanent and 1-2 others and to this day his mannerisms and repeated techniques manifest themselves in multiple films now. Brad Pitt on the other hand has far more range and in the mid-to-late 2000s took it to another level when he stopped caring about looking good. Change my mind.

As much as I like him he is overrated on this forum. Yet to see the film itself on topic so will judge for myself.

Don't call me James wrote:

El Gunner wrote:
@CB DiCaprio is the protagonist in the film, the entire movie revolves around his story of a fading Hollywood star.
And I'm not taking any of this bullshit that Pitt was far better than him in the film.

100% with ElGee here. Pitt's character is an awesome badass cool guy. Brad Pitt does an awesome job conveying that but he's Brad Pitt and he's cool as fuck himself so he's mostly just playing himself. It's way more impressive the character DiCaprio is playing.

DiCaprio's acting > Pitt's acting in this movie.

The scene where he's acting for a TV show and then suddenly acts really good on scene with the little girl just showed how damn good of an actor Leo is.

Brad Pitt being high on acid was on par with that for me

Both of them were really impressive in different ways. But ever since he won an Oscar, Leo has become overrated for some people.

looks like im the only one that thought Once Upon a Time was by far the worst film QT has made. it didnt realy have a story.

I mean I never said DiCaprio was bad in it. I was probably being harsh saying "decent". I enjoyed him, but the fact of the matter is that his storyline for much of the movie was relatively bland, while Pitt's storyline was the more engaging one.

I think Pitt was better, but I think Pitt also had the better lines and the better storyline. Btw, does anyone have better comedic timing and delivery than Brad Pitt?

In a film that is more of a comedy than anything, I think it's his ability to be comedic that stands out over DiCaprio.

Overall a bit disappointed in OUATIH. I almost fell asleep during the first half. Knives Out is a comfortably better comedy, although it won't get the awards love OUATIH does.

CBarca wrote:I mean I never said DiCaprio was bad in it. I was probably being harsh saying "decent". I enjoyed him, but the fact of the matter is that his storyline for much of the movie was relatively bland, while Pitt's storyline was the more engaging one.

I think Pitt was better, but I think Pitt also had the better lines and the better storyline. Btw, does anyone have better comedic timing and delivery than Brad Pitt?

In a film that is more of a comedy than anything, I think it's his ability to be comedic that stands out over DiCaprio.

Overall a bit disappointed in OUATIH. I almost fell asleep during the first half. Knives Out is a comfortably better comedy, although it won't get the awards love OUATIH does.

I agree with the comedy thing. Pitt is such a great and versatile actor when it comes to comedy. Frankly wish he did more of that, whenever he does it, it more often than not turns into an iconic character.

Also this comparison is dumb really. They're so different as actors.

The true comparison for DiCaprio is Matt Damon.

RealGunner wrote:

based on the trailer this is a money laundering scheme

RealGunner wrote:

I think we are all watching the wrong films lads

El Gunner wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:Really odd no one seems to mention DiCaprio plays mostly himself in most films bar exceptions like Aviator, Revanent and 1-2 others and to this day his mannerisms and repeated techniques manifest themselves in multiple films now. Brad Pitt on the other hand has far more range and in the mid-to-late 2000s took it to another level when he stopped caring about looking good. Change my mind.  

As much as I like him he is overrated on this forum. Yet to see the film itself on topic so will judge for myself.

And who is DiCaprio really? I don't agree with this.
Just watch interviews of him as i guess that's the best way for us who don't know him personally to gauge an accurate personality for DiCaprio the man himself.

He seems quite stoic, shrewd even. Perhaps aloof, not too far away from the cool guy aura that Pitt exudes - he just doesn't have the manly man (machoness) of Pitt.

And that's quite different to Leo's portrayals in movies. And if you're saying his portrayals in movies are the same Leo, then i think you're wrong again. In films like Inception he is a confused man right on the edge of losing his mind and Shutter Island he is literally a psychotic patient so the the brooding, intense characters are more or less the same and I think this is what you mean when you say that's Leo.

But just look at his films with Scorsese for much more variation. There's no way you can say the narcissistic perm-haired Jordan Belfort (WoWS) is the same as the free-spirited, daring Amsterdam Vallon (GoNY)

I agree he may not be the chameleon actors that Daniel Day Lewis and Christian Bale are, but saying he just plays himself takes away from the man's acting credibility. And he definitely has much more finer, emotional performances than the impenetrable Pitt that couldn't come close to opening himself to the vulnerability and emotion that Leo has shown on screen.

Who he is truly does not matter given we watch him for what he plays and he plays everyone but himself but by playing himself, I will explain.

First and foremost I am not taking credit from his performances as I have watched Leo since the beach and my interest in him peaked in Aviator, to which I still credit as his finest performance, and a year he was robbed by Jamie Fox playing Ray, to which was a highly overrated performance.

But eventually you noticed the same techniques Leo used to act in one film, were used in others. It gets repetitive. The best actors do not do that but become their character. And yes from DDL to Bale to say Joaquin Phoenix to Meryl Streep. With Leo you never truly feel you are watching his character bar exceptions but you are watching him play a role and that, very well.

He is an outstanding actor and amongst the best today but when you are backed up by Scorsese who has made many actors look better than what they are just by the screenwriting itself, you will have that platform.

I am in the boat he has become overrated. But true thespian techniques do not rely on reproducing what you use in previous films as Inception was not an acting virtuoso performance whereas Shutter Island was, arguably the better film too but many of the same mannerisms that he displayed there, were the same in many of his films. And yes they are present in some of his interviews too.


Pitt's cool guy aura is barely a thing now and stopped once he finally shifted away from that as he was a terrible actor back then, really.

Ad Astra
Benjamin Button
Babel
Jesse James
Killing them softly
Burn after reading


Display more range then Leo has and I do feel he has reached a ceiling unless he redevelops himself like many great actors have when reaching another stage. Thankfully he did just that with Revenant to which was genuinely a spellbinding performance.

Thankfully I am fine with it as if anything Denzel Washington, does the same thing more or less but displays his roles perfectly when he does perform them.

Damon I feel has not truly tested himself or had the consistent directorial direction of the same director if not skilled one that Leo has had in so many fantastic ones, with Scorsese being the obvious. I see signs where he can perform a lot better should he be given a role to which he immerses himself like Leo did in Revenant or Pitt in 12 monkeys or so but I doubt he will by this point. It is indeed an agree to disagree subject given the subjective so merely a difference of opinions, indeed.

Watched Two Popes last night, good movie. I wanted to ask if
whether Popee Francis is really a cool and progressive Pope as the movie claims to be or he  just has good PR and I watched a propaganda film?

Freeza wrote:

CBarca wrote:I mean I never said DiCaprio was bad in it. I was probably being harsh saying "decent". I enjoyed him, but the fact of the matter is that his storyline for much of the movie was relatively bland, while Pitt's storyline was the more engaging one.

I think Pitt was better, but I think Pitt also had the better lines and the better storyline. Btw, does anyone have better comedic timing and delivery than Brad Pitt?

In a film that is more of a comedy than anything, I think it's his ability to be comedic that stands out over DiCaprio.

Overall a bit disappointed in OUATIH. I almost fell asleep during the first half. Knives Out is a comfortably better comedy, although it won't get the awards love OUATIH does.

I agree with the comedy thing. Pitt is such a great and versatile actor when it comes to comedy. Frankly wish he did more of that, whenever he does it, it more often than not turns into an iconic character.

Also this comparison is dumb really. They're so different as actors.

The true comparison for DiCaprio is Matt Damon.

I agree. I'm comparing them only on this film. They're very different actors and enjoyable in their own ways.