Jake Gittes

You got at least 6 of those right (I haven't seen CA2 and I kinda cooled off on Begins over the years). I would add Batman 1966, Batman Returns, The Incredibles, Watchmen for sure; also possibly Unbreakable (have to see it again to be sure), Superman II (Donner's cut), Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and maybe even X-Men First Class.

The Avengers would maybe be #11 on my list of best superhero films.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thanks, just looked it up. Never heard of it before but it sounds fascinating.

Kidman should just ditch the mainstream and work (near-)exclusively with people like Von Trier, Jonathan Glazer, Park Chan-wook, Herzog, etc. (with an occasional Rabbit Hole type of film which could offer her awards chances). They all obviously like her and at this point they are some of the only filmmakers who know how to use her well.

I'm patiently waiting for Herzog's Queen of the Desert with Kidman in the lead. Should be something to see.

For those who've seen Shoah. is it true that Lanzmann doesn't bother with subtitles and has all the questions and answers translated to the interviewees and then back to him? Because, honestly, sight unseen, that reeks of self-importance i.e. "My subject is the Holocaust so I'm gonna do whatever the fuck I want including stretching the film to 9+ hours like that which would only make fewer people want to commit to watching it". I'm sure there's some insight to be gained there but I also imagine it could quickly become punishing. I'd rather just rewatch Alain Resnais' Night and Fog which packs an absolutely incredible amount of power and horror into just 30 minutes of screentime. I also read a comment from Lanzmann where he angrily said something to the effect of "people shouldn't try to understand the roots of Hitler's evil", something I couldn't disagree more with because to me Hitler is so terrifying precisely due to having been a human and not just some inexplicably evil boogeyman who only appeared once and could never possibly return.

That, and according to Thomas Keneally (who wrote the book) Mrs. Schindler was indeed paid. I think it's a very good film but I'm always interested in reading critiques against it. Godard's was partly incredibly lazy (the money comment) but he also got at something true, in that there is something troubling about such a weighty true story being tweaked so that it could become a Hollywood narrative which no doubt helped it (and the Holocaust in general) get more exposure. The question is whether the exposure justifies the means, and while it's easy to say yes, the more I think about it the less sure I am. I'm all for dramatic license but when you're dealing with something like Holocaust you should really think twice before applying it.

Just give some Oscars to Linklater, Keaton, Julianne Moore, J.K. Simmons, Patricia Arquette, Lord & Miller and Roger Deakins, and go home.

Not everyone.

Academy Award Nominee Seth Rogen here we come.

I hope someone with more time on their hands than me puts together a full plot synopsis of Interstellar based just on this thread.

The psychologist in Psycho The musical number in Return of the Jedi

I can only expect a nuanced and thoughtful cinematic exploration of the event.

Don't like it except for the score. It especially paled in comparison with Cloud Atlas which I actually went to see the very next day.

I still have no idea how the hell The Great Beauty missed that list. Especially with Spring Breakers making it.

Aww.

I had a blast with it. I accepted early on that I wasn't going to comprehend a good amount of what Godard wants to say, do and reference here, so I pretty much just laid back and enjoyed it as a speedy, funny, wildly inventive stream of rambling ideas and juxtapositions, visual, aural and otherwise. It feels less like a film that breaks all the rules and more like one that isn't even aware that there are any in the first place. This is only the second post-1966 Godard film I've seen following In Praise of Love, which I thought was dry as a fucking bone in every way, lifeless and sometimes eye-rollingly stupid. Godard uses all the same techniques here which only makes the difference in quality more staggering. Though of course there are a lot of people among critics and academics who love that film and would put the two near the same level. And yes: greatest use of 3D ever.

GBH score was much less memorable than Desplat's previous two scores for Anderson.

From the films I've seen I just want Simmons to win Supporting Actor (which should happen) and GBH to get nominated for Cinematography and Production Design.

Unbroken would probably fit that role better provided it doesn't receive unexpectedly huge acclaim.

Stingray, we're going to have to do something about this.

It's not mandatory for every year to have a blockbuster BP nominee. 2011 and 2012 didn't have one unless we count Life of Pi which was only a huge hit overseas.

Very much looking forward to it. To the Wonder made me excited to see what Malick is going to do with this new style he's adopted, where narrative is basically non-existent and it's all about spectacular images, music and editing. I understand those who are saying he's fallen into self-parody but I'd say there was much more of that in The Tree of Life which now looks more and more like a messy, awkward compromise between his old and new style. I love seeing him without any constraints now.

Keaton, Cumberbatch, Carell, Redmayne, O'Connell. Gonna be between the first two I think.