Cmasterclay

So are people finally done fantasy casting Garrett Hedlund as young Han Solo, or is that still somehow a thing people actually want?

I think Spotlight is still the favorite. Buzzy hit on the festival circuit, a safe and traditional movie that talks about a big enough topic to still be "edgy," relevant and thought-provoking subject matter, starry ensemble, well-received trailers that have led to pretty good box office potential (I think it'll be a hit), and it's a movie about smart, competent people doing their jobs really well, which the Academy loves. Also, a journalism procedural is "different" enough to warrant attention while still safe enough not to scare off anyone with more sensitive sensibilities. It's no lock by any means, and there's still alot to go, but if I was putting my money down today, I say it has all the traits of a BP winner.

Of course, it's only a few tweets and leaked reviews. He's my personal front-runner, mostly because I've had him up there higher than most for awhile and because he's a vet in the kind of role/movie vets win for. But in a race this stacked, there's by no means a consensus front runner, no matter how strong his reviews are.

Predictions: Mark Rylance (winner, according to early reviews and tweets he is fannntastic in it, and the highlight of the movie. Seems like someone they wanna reward) Michael Keaton Harvey Keitel Elba One of the Hateful Eight guys OR Hardy There's a ton of other guys in contention, with Del Toro putting on a spectacular performance, Ruffalo offering himself up as a contender again, Edgerton getting a ton of praise of Black Mass, Mitchell's hugely popular performance in Compton, Oscar Issac proving how fucking great he is again in Ex Machina, Tremblay getting heavy praise, Rogen earning his stripes, and whoever they push from Joy or Big Short sure to be in contention. Most interesting this category has been in YEARS. And that's ignoring well-regarded performances like Shannon in 99 Homes and Robert Redford in Truth.

I too like to make my box office predictions by shuffling people into stupid groups that have no basis in reality.

First couple of reviews for Bridge of Spies leaked ahead of tonight's embargo. Apparently, it's quite good, nomination good, but not win good. Of course, that's a tiny sample size, but it seems like it could/should sneak in. And Rylance seems like the real deal contender here.

Considering how well my sold out showing of Martian reacted to this trailer, I would say you're wrong.

See, I didn't read it that way. I read it that the way her and her African-American partner were consistently shut down, ostracisized, and marginalized by a group of hard-ass Delta Force white guys as a commentary on the way these marginalized groups are constantly shuffled to the side in a law enforcement issue that hugely affects them. To me, it tried to paint a picture of the way the hedgemonic force irresponsibilly abusing their power in a way that keeps minority groups from advancing. It's a harsh view and a sad view, but a sad view that probably fits with the reality of these structures. I don't think a Zero Dark monologue moment would have worked here. This took a much more cynical view meant to emphasize the overbearing corrupt nature of these agencies. I read it very much like that movie A Most Wanted Man from last year, thematically- no matter how good people try to be, no matter how hard they fight for the light, the overwhelming, disgusting, vile power of these shady systems overcomes that good instinct in the end. But I think it's great we disagree, it makes it more interesting. Fascinating to see how two relatively like minded people can have such strongly different readings. I thought it was a brilliantly cynical and disgustingly terrifying descent into total darkness. You read it as an obtuse, boring, sterile reading of the issue. And neither of us is wrong! That's whats cool about movies.

Ethan=Halba double account confirmed.

To you and Tree: You do realize that movies aren't just box office constructs that magically appear when a studio schedules them, right? They're the incredibly hard work of people who have made this their careers. Sicario is a fucking boss movie made by some incredibly talented folks- saying that they "deserved" to watch their good work flop because some studio exec scheduled it on the wrong date is just.......blegh. It's so cynical and rude. Sure, a movie's quality isn't linked to box office, but no well-made movie "deserves" to flop. That's silly to me.

I'm not astounded at all. Honestly, I'm surprised it's even as good as it apparently it. I think I predicted like 50 mill total for it. I'm just saying that alot of movies have "dumb concepts" that have become critically and commercially beloved hits. So just saying "It's a dumb concept!!!" is a stupid way to talk about movies.

I've seen alot of anger and vitriol thrown around by fanboys on this board, but this intense hate here for a well-reviewed, small-scale Robert Zemeckis drama about a guy who walks across the World Trade Center is.........pretty stupefying, to be honest.

Can't believe I forgot to review this. God, I loved this movie. My favorite of the year so far. Intense, brutal, terrifying, and visceral. Chris Ryan of Grantland is right- it feels like the Apocalypse Now of the drug war. A hypnotic movie that delves deeper into unspeakable horror and darkness than most movies dare to do. Fascinating, complex politics, too. Feels like No Country meets Platoon meets Traffic meets Prisoners. It's just fucking aces. So much to pull apart here. Deakins and Johannasson's work is just tremendous in adding to the mood and tone of this piece. And dat cast.....jeez. Every player in this matters, and nails it. Blunt and Brolin have never been better. And Del Toro.....one of the most memorable performances and characters of modern times. He's just a presence. Like an unstoppable, otherworldly force taking human form. He's Anton Chigurh in tailored suits. God, it's tremendous. See this fucking movie.

You could easily say that the Walk is a movie about one of the greatest achievements in acrobatics and daredevil spirit in human history. It's just a pointless way to talk about movies.

Anything can be a dumb concept when you phrase it like that. No one should be interested about a guy using the scientific method in order to grow potatoes, either.

Eh, San Andreas was a summer movie with a younger audience because it was a disaster movie. This is a hard-science adult movie released in october. Not the best comp.

Jurassic Park, obviously not a shitty movie, so it might not be the best example here, but a movie where the film's final product is COMPLETELY different from the tone and feel of the source material due to the choices that Spielberg and the crew make. Timeline, another awesome Crichton book, has a relatively faithful-ish script, but that movie is fucking terribad in every way due to failures in direction, casting, and production. So it ain't that easy.

Eh, not really. Filmmaking is a much bigger process than the script, and I say that as a huge fan of this book. Plenty of good books have been turned into shitty, shitty movies.

Look, without getting into a huge discussion over Gravity's overall quality (it's been awhile since I saw it, but I remember liking it alot), I think that calling it "empty spectacle" and "special effects fest" just doesn't make sense. Movies are about telling stories, and there's more than one way to tell a story. Sure, Gravity might have been more production driven and had less dialogue/"quiet moments" than most traditional "character driven" films, but that doesn't make it an empty spectacle, it just means it implemented different ways to tell the story of a character and her survival against all the odds. Would Gravity have really worked- as an examination of the loneliness and terror of both space and life, and the fight to survive it (which is what it was, clearly seen in Bullock's character arc)- with Tarantino dialogue and a bunch of dramatic monologues and "deep" character development? No, of course not. All of those long shots and set pieces and intense disaster scenes that were there instead served a clear narrative purpose- to tell the story of the sheer instrumountable odds that are thrown at a person, and her quest to overcome them. Everything that happens in Gravity makes clear sense in terms of the narrative and the character's arc- and if the movie uses innovative tactics to get this story across, I say all the better. Movies are supposed to be different. What matters is that they tell their story in a way that makes sense. Gravity's way certainly made sense, from a filmmaking perspective.

We get it. You don't like this movie, you think Innaritu is a fake auteur hack, and you think everyone who does like it is a pretentious hipster or something. You've established that. You can stop making sarcastic posts every five seconds.

Why would rules of basic biology suddenly stop applying. again?

This is flowing, liquid water, not fossilized evidence of water that existed in the past. This is actual real water flowing on the surface of another planet, and the existence of flowing water gives indications about the potential for a life-sustaining environment.

Yea, I'm pretty sure that flowing water being discovered on another planet, which gives salient evidence of an environment potentially conductive for life, is a WAY bigger deal than you're making it out to be. That's a legitimately huge discovery. Unless you expected them to have discovered actually aliens, I don't see how you can dismiss this with "eh."

Not enough love in this topic for ThunderBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

To continue further on the path of movie recs, see Sicario. It's absolutely tremendous. Incredibly shot, visceral, intense, brutal, and weighty. Like a cross between No Country for Old Men, Traffic, and Prisoners. Would have zero problem with Del Toro winning the OSCAH, and Blunt and Brolin getting serious consideration.