Spartydog, take a look at the thread I linked to on page 1 of this thread.
You MUST be joking. On a purely filmmaking level, SPR outclasses anything on that list except for All Quiet on the Western Front, Platoon and Apocalypse Now. Three Kings was a mediocre film with a B-movie feel to it.
No the Academy rules on writing have not changed. That’s why I included examples for you going back to 1966. I could have gone back to 1930. And remember that only screenwriting members of the Academy do the nominating. When they nominated Branagh’s script for Hamlet, they understood that a screenplay is more than plot and dialogue. The screenplay is the blueprint for everything in the movie, from production design to lighting to direction to acting to editing. Everyone takes their cues from the script.
A Beautiful Mind sickened me on many levels.
First of all, they indeed utterly wasted a chance to give a lay audience a glimpse at how powerful and wonderful math can be. Game theory is one of the few such subjects that is accessible to untrained people, and the movie featured only one attempt at explaining it (the men all chasing one girl). This, however, was horridly marred by the ridiculous blather about “proving Adam Smith wrong.” WTF was that about? Game theory, if anything, refines Smith, not contradicts him: it deals with situations in which there ISN’T a single price mechanism. Instead, math became, as was said before, scribbling unintelligible formulas on windows. They kept TELLING us that it was amazing and deep, but they never tried any inventive way of SHOWING us. That’s like, the first rule of art: reveal truths, don’t just tell us them flat out like you’re reading from a cue card.
Second of all, I thought it was a terrible, utterly Hollywood portrayal of mental illness. Nash’s illness was not anything like a consistent fantasy of three people haunting you like they were ghosts. That’s so simple, so bland, and so far from letting us get even a glimpse of what it is like to have disordered thoughts.
Third, well, obviously the story wasn’t in the least true to reality, which is a shame, because the reality was far more fascinating and troubling.
Oh man, Three Kings was easily ten times the movie that Ryan was. Distinct characters, conflict derived from interaction with those characters, a legitmate attempt to explore the moral dimension of the war in question… Now that’s how you do a war movie!
And Ryan better than Kagemusha? There’s more passion, beauty, and intelligence in the least Kurosawa movie than can be found in every movie Spielburg’s ever made.
Sorry, but Three Kings characterization was its worst feature. Clooney’s character was flat (although his wooden acting didn’t help), Marky Mark was intense but overall his character was just dull and unengaging. The attempt to make the Iraqi torturer more “human” came across as fake—his “my wife died by your bomb” speech has been done in a dozen other movies, and better.
The dopey guy (I can’t remember the actor’s name and the character’s name was utterly forgettable, as was the character) was pure comic-relief stereotyping. The Army bad guys were cardboard cutouts and the only halfway real characters were the Iraqi civilians.
It was a well plotted movie, I will give it that, but the acting was so-so, the character development was comic-book level and the action was totally unrealistic.
We all bow to your wisdom as the mighty arbiter of all things celluloid. Now… take your lollipop, go outside, and let the adults talk in peace.
Funniest post of the year!!!
oh, wait, you were serious…
I’d drop Full Metal Jacket from that list. It has a spellbinding first half, and a merely good second half. I’d also drop The Dam Busters and Platoon (though incredibly moving on first viewing, it hasn’t held up for me over time). I’d replace them with Schindler’s List , Lawrence of Arabia, and Battleship Potempkin. I’d add Breaker Morant, Gallipoli, Grave of the Fireflies, Alexander Nevsky, Das Boot, The Emperor and the Assassin, and The Grand Illusion.
If you count Kurosawa’s Shakespeare adaptations (they have battle scenes, but the conflicts don’t really last long enough to be classified as wars, and are fictional to boot), Ran and Throne of Blood belong on a list of the great war movies.
But why should the list be limited to serious war movies? By doing that, you exclude MASH, The General, and Duck Soup, and Dr. Strangelove, which I think belong on any list of the great war movies.
I personally think Saving Private Ryan was a wonderful movie (not anywhere near the greatest war movie ever, but probably in the top 25), and more deserving of the Oscar than Shakespeare in Love, but I think SIL was also a very good movie. My take is that SPR lost out to SIL because it was released so early in the year, combined with better campaigning by it’s studio. It’s too soon to know whether either of these will enter the pantheon of great movies, and speculating about 20 years from now is at best a hopeful guess. My pick for the best movie of 1998 was After Life.
My contribution to the OP: The Mission is a truly wretched movie nominated for best picture.
Many people are listing Academy oversights–movies that beat out better movies–which doesn’t exactly fit the topic of the OP. It was a crime that How Green Was My Valley won over Citizen Kane, but that doesn’t make HGWMV a bad movie by any means. Likewise, though I think SPR was a better movie than SIL, I still like SIL.
I very seldom agree with the Academy on what was the best picture in a given year (twice since 1980 [Unforgiven in 1992 and Amadeus in 1984{don’t you hate it when someone overuses parenthetical inserts?}]), but that doesn’t mean that the movies that beat my favorites are any way lacking in quality. As others have pointed out, seldom is the winner a bad movie, even if it isn’t the best movie of the year. I think Gladiator beating Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a bigger oversight than SIL over SPR. But Gladiator was a pretty good Roman gladiator movie.
Schindler’s isn’t a war movie per se. As to the rest, I was never really awed by Potemkin (AKA Comrade Kane), Lawrence of Arabia is good but not great in any respect except the main theme, and most of the rest I haven’t seen. I may concede the point on Das Boot, I’ll have to think about it.
**
I don’t. Moving swiftly along… 
**
I don’t know about Duck Soup - the Marx Brothers just aren’t funny IMO - but if the list had included serious war movies then MASH and Dr Strangelove would have been on it. The reason it didn’t was that I was establishing a set of comparisons to Ryan. You cannot compare MASH to Saving Private Ryan.
**
No, it fuckin’ wasn’t. Kane has nothing but a load of neat camera tricks going for it; it was the Titanic of its day. When I took Film Studies at university, the lecturer actually apologised for Kane being on the curriculum.
**
Gladiator winning was an oversight, but it beating CTHD was not. CTHD is quite simply the worst film of its type that I have ever seen, and I’ve seen quite a few. Ang Lee’s direction was so bad that he didn’t even notice his actors weren’t touching the roofs during that sequence - and don’t claim it was deliberate; if it was, he would have told them to stop desperately churning their legs in an attempt to gain purchase on the ground. Lee can direct - The Ice Storm is a fine movie - but he cannot direct action. I truly fear for The Hulk.
(“Hulk will have cup of tea, Mrs Bingley. You have little pink sandwich biscuits for Hulk?”)
Sorry, I was unaware that 1)you were the owner of this website and 2)that the rules stated that only people who agree with you may state their opinions.
I AM aware of the rule that says that when you disagree with someone you will attack them rather than their position. That seems to be your modus operandi.
But you don’t seem to be aware of the rule that says “If you want to flame someone, take it to the Pit”.
You haven’t seen Zulu, then. An outstandingly shot film. My favorite war film, then Three Kings, which does not have a B movie feel to it. It was nicely paced and filled with humor, something not found in SPR, if I can remember.
SPR wins hands down for the best opening 20 minutes, after that it is just a John Wayne Movie regurgitated into a 90’s format. Predictable and dragging.
On the contrary, it would be Mockingbird who is and has continued to flame. And it would be you being very selective in your reccommendations given that fact.
No, actually you’re quite wrong.
I certainly don’t embrace all of Steven Spielberg’s work. Too often, his attempts at serious films carry an air of desperation, as if he’s saying, “Look at me, Academy voters! Look at me! I’m making a SERIOUS, IMPORTANT FILM, based on an ACCLAIMED NOVEL! A period piece, yet! No sharks, no dinosaurs, but lots of lush cinematography and people in antiquated costumes. NOW can I have my Oscar? PLEASE?”
Anyone who’s seen “The Color Purple” or “Amistad” should know what I mean.
At the same time, though, I think many people are overly suspicious of anything Spielberg does. They’re so convinced that he’s “shallow” and “manipulative” that, when he DOES manage to move them, they immediately dismiss and discount Spielberg’s achievement. If he makes them laugh, they retroactively dismiss that (“sure, it was funny, but it was funny in a cheap, obvious way”). If he makes them cry, they retroactively dismiss that (“well, sure, that was a touching moment, but it’s EASY to make people cry with the right subject matter and a little maudlin music by John Williams”).
Well, guess what? It’s NOT easy to thrill people, it’s NOT easy to make them laugh, and it’s NOT easy to move them. Spielberg tries hard to do these things- sometimes extremely successfully, sometimes very poorly.
Miller actually proves my point, by saying it was only on SUBSEQUENT viewings of “Private Ryan” that he decided he didn’t like it. I suspect that, like many of Spielberg’s harshest critics, he found it hard to resist the film’s appeal on first viewing, and needed time to talk himself into hating it.
Spielberg is, unquestionably, the most talented director on Earth, in terms of visuals. He’s less successful in terms of coaxing the best possible performances out of his stars (he’s much like Hitchcock in that regard). He’s made brilliant films, but he also falls on his face regularly. I don’t expect anyone to swoon over everything he does, and it doesn’t bother me if people dislike Spielberg films I admire. But I resent people who consider themselves too smart or too sophisticated to be “manipulated” by things that are genuinely moving, funny or thrilling.
If a joke doesn’t make you laugh, by all means, feel free to sneer “That wasn’t funny.” But you are NOT free to hear a joke, laugh hysterically, then compose yourself and say, “Well, sure that was funny, but it was funny in a cheap, obvious way.” Similarly, if a Spielberg film bores you to tears (“A.I.”, anyone?), feel free to lambaste it. But if it does thrill you or move you to tears, don’t rationalize that away afterward.
I have no patience with either of you - you’re both acting like twelve year olds. I just didn’t feel the urge to follow up the pair of you.
Now drop it or take it to the Pit.
I didn’t think much of Ryan and I’ve only seen it once. Nor am I on a Spielberg bash, because I like most of his films (except ET, of course). Explain that away if you can.
First off, you didn’t talk to both of us, you talked to me. And then we find out you didn’t like SPR so you agree with Mockingbird. And you didn’t say anything to him/her. So that tells me what I need to know.
And I won’t be dropping my disagreement as I didn’t insult anyone. Mockingbird did. If you want to tell him/her to drop it, feel free. Until then, I will continue to comment as I see fit and you can feel free to do the same.
I don’t WANT to explain it away, nor do I need to. I don’t require everyone to agree with me, and if you can honestly say you were bored or unmoved by “Saving Private Ryan,” well, fine! There’s nothing more to discuss- we just disagree, that’s all.
But I’m defending Spielberg because I’ve found that many of his most ardent critics have a tendency to steel themselves before entering the theater. In a comedy club, there are always self-styled hipsters who put on a stone face, and practically dare the performers, “Let’s see you make me laugh.” Spielberg’s critics often approach his work the same way.
I use the local Austin newspaper film critic as an example: he gave “Saving Private Ryan” two stars, the same rating he’d give another “Ace Ventura” sequel. Naturally, that created outrage from many people who’d loved, and the critic felt a need to explain himself.
There are all kinds of legitimate arguments he could have made. Or, barring that, he could have acknowledge “This film has touched many people deeply, but it simply didn’t move me the same way.” Instead, he chose to dismiss the film’s achievements entirely! The fact that it moved millions of people to tears? Big deal, the critic sniffed, I could kill a kitten on screen and make people cry. That wouldn’t make it a good film.
I can’t read minds, so obviously, I don’t know what Miller (and other Spielberg dissers) really thinks. But the critic obviously fancies himself waaaay smarter and waaaay cooler than the rest of us. He’s FAR too sophisticated to cry just because something sad happens… only us stupid sheep would let Spielberg “manipulate” them like that. And that’s an attitude I find common among the anti-Spielberg crowd.
If you’re not one of those people, if you simply didn’t like this particular film, well, okay. Opinions vary.