Movie Discussion Thread

[hugegmenfan]

Originally Posted by fischbowl

Bunch of best supporting snubs

Hoffman for BtDKYD
Ben Foster for 3:10
Paul Dano for TWBB

Paul Dano's oscar snub was ridiculous. He was right up there with Chigurh and Wilkinson and his performance was part of the appeal of the movie for me

[JagHombre22]

Originally Posted by hugegmenfan

Paul Dano's oscar snub was ridiculous. He was right up there with Chigurh and Wilkinson and his performance was part of the appeal of the movie for me

I think Hoffman should have been nominated for best actor....not just supporting actor...

[fischbowl]

Originally Posted by JagHombre22

I think Hoffman should have been nominated for best actor....not just supporting actor...

Hawke was the lead.

[JagHombre22]

Originally Posted by fischbowl

Hawke was the lead.

really?

wow...even more reason he should have been nominated...he completely outshine Hawke.

[BamaFalcon59]

Again, did I miss what was so great about There Will Be Blood? Acting was great, cinimatography (spelling) was great, etc. But I'm not sure what anyone liked about the story, which makes a great movie. No central plotline, no action obviously, no resolution to a crisis, etc.

[Paul]

Hoffman wasn't the lead? Who the hell was he supporting, Merisa Tomei's tits?

[JagHombre22]

Originally Posted by Paul

Hoffman wasn't the lead? Who the hell was he supporting, Merisa Tomei's tits?

I would.....

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by BamaFalcon59

Again, did I miss what was so great about There Will Be Blood? Acting was great, cinimatography (spelling) was great, etc. But I'm not sure what anyone liked about the story, which makes a great movie. No central plotline, no action obviously, no resolution to a crisis, etc.

I don't know why you are asking a second time. I was going to respond to your first post but I thought better of it. Simply put, you did miss how great it was. Everything about the movie was great. Lack of story is a ****** argument that people who either weren't paying attention or are fools make that is just not true, the film had an incredible story. Personally I don't need movies to spoonfeed me a resolution and a central plotline, I would like to think I am more intelligent then a four year old. I guess you just weren't paying attention because I really don't know how you can make those points with a straight face.

[JagHombre22]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

I don't know why you are asking a second time. I was going to respond to your first post but I thought better of it. Simply put, you did miss how great it was. Everything about the movie was great. Lack of story is a ****** argument that people who either weren't paying attention or are fools make that is just not true, the film had an incredible story. Personally I don't need movies to spoonfeed me a resolution and a central plotline, I would like to think I am more intelligent then a four year old. I guess you just weren't paying attention because I really don't know how you can make those points with a straight face.

well calling him a four year old doesn't help....also, why don't you just explain the answers to his question and not condemn him for disliking a movie...

just a thought

[Dr. Gonzo]

I did not call him a 4 year old. I did not want to respond, but he askd twice. I have already spent pages upon pages defending the movie and I am to tired to give actual reasoning. I gave a short answer, he asked if he didn't get the movie, I said that yes, he didn't.

[BamaFalcon59]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

I don't know why you are asking a second time. I was going to respond to your first post but I thought better of it. Simply put, you did miss how great it was. Everything about the movie was great. Lack of story is a ****** argument that people who either weren't paying attention or are fools make that is just not true, the film had an incredible story. Personally I don't need movies to spoonfeed me a resolution and a central plotline, I would like to think I am more intelligent then a four year old. I guess you just weren't paying attention because I really don't know how you can make those points with a straight face.

I'm most likely smarter than you, not a great arguement. Wow, a guy gets rich, struggles with his son and his condition, has some conflicts with a church, dips slowly into madness. That's not all, but it aint much more. I got the purpose, the themes, etc.

Basically you said nothing except yap. Please explain to me how this movie should be considered a 'great movie'. I doubt you can. I'm not going to apologize for disliking a movie and not following the crowd. Actually, it was an okay movie. But it was not close to great.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by BamaFalcon59

I'm most likely smarter than you, not a great arguement. Wow, a guy gets rich, struggles with his son and his condition, has some conflicts with a church, dips slowly into madness. That's not all, but it aint much more.

Basically you said nothing except yap. Please explain to me how this movie should be considered a 'great movie'. I doubt you can. I'm not going to apologize for disliking a movie and not following the crowd. Actually, it was an okay movie. But it was not close to great.

I even said that I did not want to respond but you persist. I am tired and pissed so I just wrote a response. I really don't want to get into this with you. I think the reason you disliked the movie is right in your response, you don't want to follow the crowd. In reality though a large number of people hate the movie. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mind. I waited for this movie for years before it came out and countless movies have dissapointed me because I hype them up, this one didn't.

You didn't like the movie and I did, let's leave it at that. Don't post twice asking people to explain it to you, that's just stupid. We have had length conversations about the movie many pages ago, so if you really care go back and look at them. I suspect that you are just trolling and looking for someone to tell you why they liked it so you can tear apart their opinion.

[BamaFalcon59]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

I even said that I did not want to respond but you persist. I am tired and pissed so I just wrote a response. I really don't want to get into this with you. I think the reason you disliked the movie is right in your response, you don't want to follow the crowd. In reality though a large number of people hate the movie. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mind. I waited for this movie for years before it came out and countless movies have dissapointed me because I hype them up, this one didn't.

You didn't like the movie and I did, let's leave it at that. Don't post twice asking people to explain it to you, that's just stupid. We have had length conversations about the movie many pages ago, so if you really care go back and look at them. I suspect that you are just trolling and looking for someone to tell you why they liked it so you can tear apart their opinion.

I asked a question, I wanted an answer. Considering most people on here liked (loved) the movie I didn't think that was much to ask.

Or maybe I was going to discuss a movie, because this is the 'Movie Discussion Thread'.

[bored of education]

There will be blood was great because of the following reasons
1. Great Script
2. Great acting
3. The historical accuracy and context
4. the plot was excellent
5. the story itself was entertaining unles you are a complete ****** and didnt have a clue about the oil era in the late 1890 tothe 1930s
i could go on all day

its a classic

[bored of education]

Also, the script was genious because of the subtle comedic dialogues in several scenes.

[BamaFalcon59]

Originally Posted by bored of education

There will be blood was great because of the following reasons
1. Great Script
2. Great acting
3. The historical accuracy and context
4. the plot was excellent
5. the story itself was entertaining unles you are a complete ****** and didnt have a clue about the oil era in the late 1890 tothe 1930s
i could go on all day

its a classic

1. Agree.
2. Agree.
3. Agree.
4. No. It might be accurate, it might show the way of people, motives, etc, but it really had no plot. It was a movie that could have been a TV series.
5. Entertaining? Maybe. Despite it being dry and having no plot or conclusion or climax or anything of that nature, it might have been entertaining.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Why do you say it had no plot? It was a character study about Daniel Planview and why he acts the way he does and the ruthless nature of the oil industry. Not every movie has to have a an ending that answers every question. Sideways ends with Paul Giamatti knocking on a door and I think everyone can agree that is a perfect ending that doesn't really resolve anything. Daniel Plainview slowly becomes more and more insane throughout the movie, near the end he drive away the only person keeping him still human, his adopted son. Once the son is gone he realizes he has nothing and then Eli shos up. It was back when he knew Eli that his son became deaf and their relationship deteriorated. He blames Eli for the emptiness inside of him and the end of the film is him giving up on life. I thought it was a brilliant ending that left interpretations of the film wide upon because my take on what happened is not the only one that can be right. Great films make you think and I still think about the movie months later.

[BamaFalcon59]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

Why do you say it had no plot? It was a character study about Daniel Planview and why he acts the way he does and the ruthless nature of the oil industry. Not every movie has to have a an ending that answers every question. Sideways ends with Paul Giamatti knocking on a door and I think everyone can agree that is a perfect ending that doesn't really resolve anything. Daniel Plainview slowly becomes more and more insane throughout the movie, near the end he drive away the only person keeping him still human, his adopted son. Once the son is gone he realizes he has nothing and then Eli shos up. It was back when he knew Eli that his son became deaf and their relationship deteriorated. He blames Eli for the emptiness inside of him and the end of the film is him giving up on life. I thought it was a brilliant ending that left interpretations of the film wide upon because my take on what happened is not the only one that can be right. Great films make you think and I still think about the movie months later.

I got all of that. I guess I enjoy a certain type of movie, or moreover plot/ ending. I'm not sure. I perfer a movie that tackles a specific event or at least a short time period, and has a direct goal. Otherwise it feels like it drags on, just waiting to begin. Concentrated over broad for me, I reckon.

[bored of education]

I would write something up in response but I dont think i will waste my time because no matter what i type you will no truely understand that qaulity of my response/

[BamaFalcon59]

Originally Posted by bored of education

I would write something up in response but I dont think i will waste my time because no matter what i type you will no truely understand that qaulity of my response/

English class?

[Paranoidmoonduck]

I just saw an absolutely fantastic thing.

The 1927 film Metropolis with a live soundtrack performed by Woodwind/Percussion/Electronic music duo Enuma Elish. Just a spectacular performance for a fantastic movie.

[Dr. Gonzo]

You are a lucky son of a *****. Sounds awesome.

[wingboy2999]

Did anyone watch the John Adams mini-series? Was that any good? It looked interesting and I always have liked Paul Giamatti. I heard some mixed reviews on it.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Originally Posted by wingboy2999

Did anyone watch the John Adams mini-series? Was that any good? It looked interesting and I always have liked Paul Giamatti. I heard some mixed reviews on it.

It's pretty good considering how much it covers in only 6 episodes. Laura Linney is fantastic as Abagail Adams, and the casting is all around pretty good (David Morse makes an awesome Washington). I enjoyed watching it, especially considering how historically accurate it's supposed to be.

[JagHombre22]

Originally Posted by wingboy2999

Did anyone watch the John Adams mini-series? Was that any good? It looked interesting and I always have liked Paul Giamatti. I heard some mixed reviews on it.

I watched the first three episodes and then got side tracked off of it...I hope it comes out on DVD soon so I can catch up on it...

it really was outstanding though...Giamatti is great in just about everything he does...