BOT: THE REVISITING -- TOP 25 of 2012 | accursed Nolanites are triumphant again

[baumer]

Lincoln. Like Fury Road.... film I appreciate way more than I liked.

[BadAtGender]

Too low for Lincoln.

[Fancyarcher]

Lincoln is superb. I didn't think I could find a 2 hour + film about American history could be so interesting, but hey leave it to Spielberg to do it well.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Fancyarcher

[TalismanRing]

Cloud Atlas is their best movie - it's uneven but still very good and yeah I'll say better than The Matrix (which is good not great) and certainly better than those awful sequels or Jupiter Ascending.

[CoolioD1]

i feel bad for tom tykwer. he directed half those stories but i feel like his name never comes up when people are talking cloud atlas. only ever in the context of the wachowskis.

[4815162342]

1 hour ago, Tele Came Back said:

Let's get back to this.

 

#15

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Lincoln
written by: Tony Kushner, based in part on the book by Doris Kearns Goodwin
directed by: Steven Spielberg
starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn

 



 



Number of first-place votes: 0

IMDB synopsis: As the Civil War continues to rage, America's president struggles with continuing carnage on the battlefield as he fights with many inside his own cabinet on the decision to emancipate the slaves.

This project began in 1999 when Goodwin mentioned to Spielberg that she was planning on writing “Team of Rivals”, and Spielberg immediately wanted the rights. It took another two years to finalize the deal and in 2001 John Logan was brought in to write the script. His draft focused on the friendship between Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Spielberg then brought on Paul Webb (a playwright) to do another draft, with the plan to begin production in 2006. But Spielberg didn’t like the new draft (which apparently covered Lincoln’s entire term as President). So Tony Kushner came on board. He admitted he felt overwhelmed because he didn’t feel he understood Lincoln well, though he admired him tremendously. Two years later, in 2008, he was still writing. His first draft was 500 pages on, and focused on four months in Lincoln’s life. By early 2009 he had narrowed it down to two months when Lincoln was concerned with the Thirteenth Amendment.

Spielberg had approached Daniel Day-Lewis way back in 2003 but Day-Lewis turned down the role. Spielberg cast Liam Neeson in 2005, but in 2010 Neeson was dealing with the fallout of his wife’s sudden death and felt the role wasn’t a good fit for him, so he requested that he be recast. Finally, in late 2010 Spielberg convinced Day-Lewis to join. The production had a 65 million budget and was a significant hit, grossing over 180 million in the United States and 275 million worldwide.

Tomato meter: 90%, 8/10 average rating

Academy Awards: 2 wins, 12 nominations

Random critic comment: “It's the most remarkable movie Steven Spielberg has made in quite a spell, and one of the things that makes it remarkable is how it fulfills those expectations by simultaneously ignoring and transcending them.” —Glenn Kenny, MSN Movies

Random RTM comment: “A pretty marvelous achievement and Speilberg's best since Minority Report.” —@Gopher
 

 

 

 

Too low!!!!

 

It low-key had one of the best trailers of the first half of the decade.

 

 

 

[Goffe]

I was thoroughly confused watching Lincoln. Every now and then I had to hit its wikipedia page and read the plot summary to understand what was going on.

[CoolioD1]

1 minute ago, 4815162342 said:

 

Too low!!!!

 

It low-key had one of the best trailers of the first half of the decade.

 

 

 

really i remember thinking this trailer was kinda ridiculous. i get they gotta sell but its so overblown compared to the movie.

[4815162342]

4 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

really i remember thinking this trailer was kinda ridiculous. i get they gotta sell but its so overblown compared to the movie.

 

I can see that, just fell on the other side

[Plain Old Tele]

Yeah, I'm on the "overblown" side.  

[TalismanRing]

17 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

i feel bad for tom tykwer. he directed half those stories but i feel like his name never comes up when people are talking cloud atlas. only ever in the context of the wachowskis.

 

He directed one of my two favorite segments - the Composer's story

The Wachowskis directed the one I disliked - the post apocalyptic Hanks/Berry

[CoolioD1]

7 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

Yeah, I'm on the "overblown" side.  

like the pictures at the start. the 9/11 shit is too much, and even more too much is gandhi and the suffragettes. shouldn't they just stick to american history here?

[Plain Old Tele]

#14

The Perks of Being a Wallflower
written and directed by: Stephen Chbotsky, based on his book
starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson

 



 



Number of first-place votes: 2

IMDB synopsis: An introvert freshman is taken under the wings of two seniors who welcome him to the real world.

First published as a popular teen book, PERKS got the interest of various filmmakers from the start. John Hughes actually got the rights first, but he never finished his screenplay (which he envisioned as a black comedy). Ron Howard, Richard Linklater, McG, Joel Schumacher, Ryan Murphy, and Danny Boyle were also interested in the project. However, author Chbotsky had a desire to make the movie himself, and when the producers of JUNO agreed, a deal was made. Chbotsky read Hughes’ script and felt parts of it would work, so he negotiated the rights from Hughes’ heirs and ended up using roughly half of Hughes’ material. The production was inexpensive — about 13 million — and a modest hit, grossing 33 million worldwide.

Tomato meter: 86%, 7.5/10 average rating

Academy Awards: 0 wins, 0 nominations

Random critic comment: “Stephen Chbosky's script is insightful about the exhilaration of soul-piercing first love, and the misery of being swept into a relationship with someone who's forceful, determined and utterly wrong for you.” —Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune

Random RTM comment: “It's a film adaptation that replaces the cliche mainstream swagger with some painful realities and simply lets the audience understand the whole point of it.” —@Heretic

[The Futurist]

26 minutes ago, Goffe said:

I was thoroughly confused watching Lincoln. Every now and then I had to hit its wikipedia page and read the plot summary to understand what was going on.

 

Same here, I doubt you can fully grasp what the movie is about if you re not versed a minimum in american history, politics and culture.

 

I mean just the portrayal of the Lincoln character, I am sorry, but I am not buying it, he is portrayed as a semi-God (and no, it s not because we seem him play with his socks on with his sons that makes him human),  a mythological creature whose every word are psalms and scriptures of wisdom that you should study to understand the human condition and tolerance.

 

In Jackie, every time they reference Lincoln, it s the same, he is like the moral compass of all America.

 

 

 

 

[4815162342]

8 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

#14

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

The Perks of Being a Wallflower
written and directed by: Stephen Chbotsky, based on his book
starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson

 



 



Number of first-place votes: 2

IMDB synopsis: An introvert freshman is taken under the wings of two seniors who welcome him to the real world.

First published as a popular teen book, PERKS got the interest of various filmmakers from the start. John Hughes actually got the rights first, but he never finished his screenplay (which he envisioned as a black comedy). Ron Howard, Richard Linklater, McG, Joel Schumacher, Ryan Murphy, and Danny Boyle were also interested in the project. However, author Chbotsky had a desire to make the movie himself, and when the producers of JUNO agreed, a deal was made. Chbotsky read Hughes’ script and felt parts of it would work, so he negotiated the rights from Hughes’ heirs and ended up using roughly half of Hughes’ material. The production was inexpensive — about 13 million — and a modest hit, grossing 33 million worldwide.

Tomato meter: 86%, 7.5/10 average rating

Academy Awards: 0 wins, 0 nominations

Random critic comment: “Stephen Chbosky's script is insightful about the exhilaration of soul-piercing first love, and the misery of being swept into a relationship with someone who's forceful, determined and utterly wrong for you.” —Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune

Random RTM comment: “It's a film adaptation that replaces the cliche mainstream swagger with some painful realities and simply lets the audience understand the whole point of it.” —@Heretic
 

 

 

 

We avoided a massive overration praise be

[The Futurist]

The Hunger Games outside the Top 20 ...

 

 

[MrPink]

2 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:

 

We avoided a massive overration praise be

 

CALM DOWN NUMBERS, THAT COMES LATER

 

I am ready for salt.

[aabattery]

2 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:

 

We avoided a massive overration praise be

 

Did we though?

[4815162342]

Just now, MrPink said:

 

CALM DOWN NUMBERS, THAT COMES LATER

 

I am ready for salt.

 

 Oh really? Do *I* look like I'm running the Franchise Wars Thread right now? Your hit, on the Box Office Derby, it didn't work, my friend! And now you have my Star Wars minions going around the forum at 24 hours a day! How exactly is that supposed to help my club absorb Tele's?

[BadAtGender]

4 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

Same here, I doubt you can fully grasp what the movie is about if you re not versed a minimum in american history, politics and culture.

 

I mean just the portrayal of the Lincoln character, I am sorry, but I am not buying it, he is portrayed as a semi-God (and no, it s not because we seem him play with his socks on with his sons that makes him human),  a mythological creature whose every word are psalms and scriptures of wisdom that you should study to understand the human condition and tolerance.

 

In Jackie, every time they reference Lincoln, it s the same, he is like the moral compass of all America.

 

Well... he kinda is. Pretty much any listing of US Presidents will have him marked as the best. This is largely held to be true regardless of political leanings. He was great in what he was able to do, both in written and spoken word, and he had a very clear understanding of how powerful the office he held was.

 

The really cool thing about the movie is that it successfully shows the difficulties he was navigating in getting slavery abolished and fighting a terrible war. If anything, it shows that it wasn't all roses, where those people who were around him hung on his every word as gospel. Indeed, this was by design: the book that Lincoln is based on is called Team of Rivals for a reason. He deliberately put together a cabinet of people who didn't agree with him or each other. This may have made it difficult for him to get things done quickly, but it helped ensure that they were done correctly.

 

Now, it's not entirely accurate as a film. There are things that are shuffled around and simplified for narrative purposes. But I'd actually argue that encouraging the viewer to go and research and see what was up is a feature, not a bug, at least in the context of historical stories like this. There were things in Lincoln that I didn't know about but was curious to go see what happened in the record. And I'm an American who majored in history in college.