Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Shannon L.

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, callie lee 29 said:

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I didn't think that the Black Panther script was anything more than the generic superhero script and I think script and writing have a lot to say in Best Picture nominations. For what it's worth I though Heath Ledger as the Joker was annoying and way over the top, but that's certainly an UO (and I also find the Joker annoying in general).

 

Personally, I think that re-watchability should be a major factor in Best Picture nominations. The Academy doesn't seem to care much for the pure enjoyment that a movie can give and they don't seem overly willing to recognize it as an important factor in a movies consideration.  

One of the two groups supporting Black Panther are the nerd class for whom the writing and scripts of movies that limited numbers of people see that get the awards are proven sub par because they don't entertain. If they did the masses people would spend their money and go see them. The box office scoreboard is the ultimate determiner of the "best". Those voting for other things as "the best'  are just as much of a nerd as them, with only a different set of taste.  And thrust me they are rewatching those movies many, many times, it is the reason they dominate the box office year round and are not just put up for a limited run to qualify for awards. Where as many Oscar winners are forgotten a few days after the "and the Oscar goes to" is announced and the AM news interviews end. The stated reason for adding more best picture nominees was to get actual popular films that people re-watch over and over on the show. Perhaps then more would watch the telecast as people have stopped tuning in to watch the 6 big awards of pictures and performances that nobody saw,

The other group are the Black peoples who never saw any other Marvel movie. Those who didn't know to stay for the mid and after credits scenes, yet wear Wakanda Forever gear.  If they saw the follow up Marvel movie Infinity War it was because of the appearance of Black Panther characters and their biggest cheer while watching the movie came when the Wakanda place setting card came on the screen.

Edited by Raja

Share this post


Link to post

I saw Holmes and Watson and it wasn't as awful as reviews are saying. I don't normally agree with IMDB-they overrate stupid movies and underrate those that are not that bad-but I think a 4/10 is a pretty fair score for it-maybe a 5/10 for some of the parts that made me laugh. Sorry for posting this here, but didn't see a thread on the movie and didn't want to start one.  I guess most people here felt the movie wasn't worth a thread. Never mind that there are multiple threads about comic book movies that don't deserve much more than a 5/10 themselves.

Anyway-there was an interview with Reilly and Ferrell and they mentioned they were not allowed to improv in this movie like in others-and  I can only think that's part of the reason it wasn't all that funny and some of the scripted jokes fell horribly flat. I'm actually okay with it not being that funny. It also has a weak script-it was like whoever wrote it was unsure about where to go with it. 

Contrary to the obviously "honest" reviews on Twitter, no one walked out of the theater. And I don't believe people were walking out in mass anywhere else, either. I wouldn't recommend paying full price for it, though-and you may even want to wait until Redbox or Netflix. I will say I saw Aquaman and it was just as stupid for the most part-but for obvious reasons, people are going to shill out money to see Aquaman, and H&W isn't going to make a profit.

And honestly-they should have done the whole thing as a musical instead of just the one musical number. It would have faired better, IMO, and likely would have made more money.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

And honestly-they should have done the whole thing as a musical instead of just the one musical number. It would have fair

That actually would have been a good idea!

My UO: I liked The Crimes of Grindelwald and I don't get why people complained that there was either "no plot" or "too much plot."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

That actually would have been a good idea!

 

I would have given anything to see Ralph Fiennes sing.  He, Hugh Laurie, and Steve Coogan were all wasted, though. The whole cast was wasted, but I got so excited to see those three, all for it to add up to not much. I suspected RF would make a great Moriarty-and he would have-he just isn't given anything to do.

I did crack up at WF's mockery of RDJ's Sherlock's mental calculations before taking an action, and how WF's Sherlock's expected outcome was always wrong. And the one scene HL gets, at the Diogenes club as Mycroft-is one of the best in the movie. Watson gets banished to the companion's room because he keeps trying to talk-and the other companions in the room-well, it's both hilarious and kind of sad. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/30/2018 at 6:24 AM, Bill1978 said:

I will not be disappointed at all if Black Panther does not get a nomination for Best Picture at the Oscars. I don't hate the movie, I think it's as good as any other Marvel movie. Therefore if they can't get a nomination for Best Picture why would it be shocking that Black Panther doesn't. I just don't see what makes Black Panther any better or award worthy than any of the other MCU movies.

I figure the Best Picture nomination can go either way and I wouldn't be shocked. I don't think a Best Picture nod would be undeserved. Black Panther is probably going to get nominations for Special Effects, the two Sound categories, Costumes, Hair & Makeup and at least one Original Song. That's six nominations. How often does a movie get six Oscar noms and not also get Best Picture? How often has a movie been up for best picture and been nominated for fewer Oscars overall? A movie isn't just the acting. The quality of the whole product should matter when considering Best Picture and the quality of Black Panther was pretty high. I won't be gutted if it doesn't get a nomination, but when you're looking at up to ten films from last year, I can make an argument in its favour to slide in there somewhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/30/2018 at 8:19 AM, Ambrosefolly said:

I am the opposite because I hate Wolverine and despise the worship of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. He is probably going to be one of the few characters that won't be recasted. I refuse to watch any movie that has him front and center--so that rules out most of X-Men series. 

It was just Christmas and it must be my birthday too, because I feel this way about Hugh Jackman. Wolverine ate up the whole X-Men movie series.  I avoid movies with Jackman too… I'm just into the worship of him. To compound this unpopular opinion, I thought Jackman was overacting and sang TERRIBLY in Les Miserables. I'd taken Russell Crowe in that movie any day. Russell acted that movie well, though I can can his voice was not the "Broadway" standard. 

Share this post


Link to post

On 12/29/2018 at 6:19 PM, Ambrosefolly said:

I am the opposite because I hate Wolverine and despise the worship of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. He is probably going to be one of the few characters that won't be recasted. I refuse to watch any movie that has him front and center--so that rules out most of X-Men series. 

Welcome to the board, Dr. Cox!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, pancake bacon said:

It was just Christmas and it must be my birthday too, because I feel this way about Hugh Jackman. Wolverine ate up the whole X-Men movie series.  I avoid movies with Jackman too… I'm just into the worship of him. To compound this unpopular opinion, I thought Jackman was overacting and sang TERRIBLY in Les Miserables. I'd taken Russell Crowe in that movie any day. Russell acted that movie well, though I can can his voice was not the "Broadway" standard. 

I agree with you about Les Mis, that is, I was okay with Jackman's acting, but very disappointed with the way he sang.  I think it wasn't so much that he was a bad singer, just that the songs weren't in the right key for him.  Colm Wilkinson is a tenor, but I think Hugh Jackman is more comfortable at a lower range and they should have changed the key of the songs rather than have him trying to match the original.  (to be fair, having spend 30 odd years listening to the original soundtrack, I'd have been critical of anybody taking the role).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/30/2018 at 6:56 PM, callie lee 29 said:

For what it's worth I though Heath Ledger as the Joker was annoying and way over the top, but that's certainly an UO (and I also find the Joker annoying in general).

You are not alone. I always thought Aaron Eckhart did a better job, especially when Harvey Dent went off the deep end.  

As for Marvel films in general, I've never been that impressed with them.  They've largely been meh for me, I've only enjoyed Black Panther and The Winter Soldier.  I shall always loathe Tony Stark, although by the end of Civil War (the last Avengers film I've seen), Steve was right there with him in getting on my last nerve.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/25/2018 at 9:05 PM, IWantCandy71 said:

I just sat through Aquaman because family members wanted to see it. Now, I liked JM in that Sundance series (can't remember the name of it right now). He had great chemistry with the other male lead. But yes he looks dirty and unkempt. Not sexy at all.

I conducted an informal poll of (3) women at my work and none of them find him attractive.  To quote one, "He looks like a caveman."  I myself am not into muscles or beards, so he does nothing for me.  Plus that thing about him ripping up that actress's books.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

This is something I've felt for a long time now, but I saw a reddit post that highlighted how he transforms his body for roles, and I just felt like putting it into words - I don't think Christian Bale is a very good actor. Sure, he loses a ton of weight, or puts on a load of muscle, to embody the roles he plays, but he's always the same. Always cold, with nothing going on behind his eyes.

I think it's no coincidence that he's always cast as damaged, distant, emotionally closed off characters. The only film of his I can think of, where he actually seems to have human warmth is Empire of the Sun, and that was made when he was twelve years old.

 

On 01/01/2019 at 3:35 PM, pancake bacon said:

It was just Christmas and it must be my birthday too, because I feel this way about Hugh Jackman. Wolverine ate up the whole X-Men movie series.  I avoid movies with Jackman too… I'm just into the worship of him. To compound this unpopular opinion, I thought Jackman was overacting and sang TERRIBLY in Les Miserables. I'd taken Russell Crowe in that movie any day. Russell acted that movie well, though I can can his voice was not the "Broadway" standard. 

Well, that seems very much in keeping with X-Men comics, where Wolverine was once somehow on all three of the supposedly different X-Men teams, just because Marvel believed his presence sold more books. It was a running joke about how he managed to be at the X-Mansion, in Madripoor and out in space, all at the same time. Then they put him in the Avengers as well. All of this on top of having at least one solo title too. One of the best things to happen for the MCU was them not having the rights to the character.

I think Hugh Jackman is a genuinely great guy, and a decent actor, but I wasn't keen on most of his singing in Les Miserables. I'm far from an expert, but he just seemed to be doing it inconsistently - He'd practically talk some lines, then sing others, and all in this breathy, hurried manner that didn't do the songs justice. Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks and Aaron Tveit were the most impressive to me

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

36 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

 

This is something I've felt for a long time now, but I saw a reddit post that highlighted how he transforms his body for roles, and I just felt like putting it into words - I don't think Christian Bale is a very good actor. Sure, he loses a ton of weight, or puts on a load of muscle, to embody the roles he plays, but he's always the same. Always cold, with nothing going on behind his eyes.

I think it's no coincidence that he's always cast as damaged, distant, emotionally closed off characters. The only film of his I can think of, where he actually seems to have human warmth is Empire of the Sun, and that was made when he was twelve years old.

 

It's not just my birthday AND Christmas, but you brought some ice cream too, @Danny Franks

I've always been perplexed that Christian Bale gets automatic Oscar consideration for every role he plays, and I don't think he's been good in almost all of them: not even in Empire of the Sun, not in American Psycho, and most of all not in American Hustle. (Renner was more affecting with his performance, so he got robbed.) I don't watch a lot of Bale's work because, well, I'm not fan. He does have nothing going on behind his eyes! I've never felt greatness beaming out of him in his performances. 

PS. Thanks to all of you  for getting what I was trying to say in my initial post, despite a crucial missing word/typo! ("I'm just not into the worship of him.")

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, pancake bacon said:

It's not just my birthday AND Christmas, but you brought some ice cream too, @Danny Franks

I've always been perplexed that Christian Bale gets automatic Oscar consideration for every role he plays, and I don't think he's been good in almost all of them: not even in Empire of the Sun, not in American Psycho, and most of all not in American Hustle. (Renner was more affecting with his performance, so he got robbed.) I don't watch a lot of Bale's work because, well, I'm not fan. He does have nothing going on behind his eyes! I've never felt greatness beaming out of him in his performances. 

PS. Thanks to all of you  for getting what I was trying to say in my initial post, despite a crucial missing word/typo! ("I'm just not into the worship of him.")

I just got the chance to see Vice tonight, and although Bale underwent an incredible transformation to play Cheney...I just didn't find the performance that appealing.  ITA about not understanding why he gets so much Oscar love--but then, I'm still pissed that he got the nod over Steve Carell for The Big Short, so my opinion may need to be taken with a grain of salt because I thought Carell was outstanding whereas Bale was...okay.  What was so great about that performance that it deserved a nomination??

Edited by wallflower75
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think Christian Bale is as great a performer as he's widely regarded to be, either (I think his physical transformations and, um, intense commitment to method acting add up to excessive praise), plus he's a jerk, so I'm not keen on him.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Bastet said:

I don't think Christian Bale is as great a performer as he's widely regarded to be, either (I think his physical transformations and, um, intense commitment to method acting add up to excessive praise), plus he's a jerk, so I'm not keen on him.

I've seen performances of his which I thought were great, and others which were not.  I like him as an actor, but I do think he tends to be overpraised by critics.

I agree 100% that Jeremy Renner was great in American Hustle, and I would much rather have seen him get the award nominations for that one.  His character was the only one I really had any sympathy for.

Edited by proserpina65
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

After reading some predictions of Black Panther winning Best Picture at the Oscars this year (which I doubt will happen) in the awards thread, I have agree with the previous posts saying that BP was not that good. Don't get me wrong, it was a highly enjoyable film that I saw twice but I don't agree that it's some cinematic masterpiece. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, JustaPerson said:

After reading some predictions of Black Panther winning Best Picture at the Oscars this year (which I doubt will happen) in the awards thread, I have agree with the previous posts saying that BP was not that good. Don't get me wrong, it was a highly enjoyable film that I saw twice but I don't agree that it's some cinematic masterpiece. 

Thank you. I didn't see it at the cinema, because I'm pretty burned out on superhero movies, but read all the hype and all the gushing reviews. When I did get around to seeing it, my reaction was, 'huh. Really?' It was just a superhero movie. Decent, but nothing special. It followed the same formula as all of them - hero faces a challenge, he initially fails because he wasn't ready for the villain, but eventually finds the strength to defeat the villain in a twenty minute long, CGI-filled climax. That it's a black hero and a mostly black cast is great, but that doesn't make it award-worthy.

The highlight of the movie was Lupita Nyong'o's Nakia, and I'd much rather have watched a film about her fighting slavers in Africa, than all the Wakanda/Black Panther stuff.

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

That it's a black hero and a mostly black cast is great, but that doesn't make it award-worthy.

I think it was an important movie for this reason, but as a whole, I don't get the BP hype.  There are others in the series that I'd put in the BP spot before this one.  I also wasn't crazy about the special effects.  Some were great, but the rhinos in the fight scenes were awful, imo. 

Share this post


Link to post

I tired of hearing about whether or not Kevin Hart should host the Oscars. I don't care one bit who hosts it. 

Black Panther wasn't that great a movie.  Don't understand all the hoopla over it.  Winter Soldier and Civil War was ten times better and nobody screamed for them to win best picture. 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, merroni said:

I tired of hearing about whether or not Kevin Hart should host the Oscars. I don't care one bit who hosts it. 

I just don't think he has much talent to begin with so I don't think he should have been asked in the first place.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

In this age of 'Net and search engines, it would have taken the Academy's PTB's mere seconds to have done a search on ANY potential host's history, views and commentaries so I consider it somewhat of a fail on the Academy's part to have not done so before they initially announced Mr. Hart's hosting- and the fact that they don't seem to have had any hosts/hostesses-in-waiting after the initial fallout is another fail! 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/4/2019 at 3:11 PM, proserpina65 said:

I've seen performances of his which I thought were great, and others which were not.  I like him as an actor, but I do think he tends to be overpraised by critics.

Honestly, like Natalie Portman, he's helped a lot by the fact that he started off as a child performer and he managed to make the very rare leap into adult lead. I have actually loved both of them in certain performances, but the praise can be a bit much sometimes. Also, he physically transforms himself a lot in all directions and the Academy loves that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I can take or leave Christian Bale.  I agree that there's been some great performances from him and some not so great ones.  However, just from the trailers, his transformation into Dick Cheney is quite impressive.  So much so, that my first reaction was "God dammit!  Couldn't they have waited till next year to release this movie?" because I didn't want Bradley Cooper or Rami Malek to have any more competition than each other (this is assuming, of course, that they're both nominated and that the other two nominees aren't quite as good.  This is my hope, anyway).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I like Bale very much as an actor, but IMO he often gets praised for the wrong things by critics. Yes, physical transformation can be impressive, but it's not what's making his strongest performances shine. He is capable to bring a lot of nuance, he goes where he thinks the character needs to go even when it gets ugly and...something that is a pet peeve of mine when actors refuse to do it: Bale has no problem going cold and unlikable. I'd agree that he has misjudged in that aspect in one or two roles and gone too far in that direction, but IMO that is preferable to actors who insist on playing characters as warm and flashy and misunderstood where it's inappropriate. I think Kate Winslet can be guilty of this and it's really marred some of her performances for me. Also, Bale is stunning in "Empire of the Sun" and IMO you could see even then that he had the chops to make it in the industry as an adult. That was no cutesy child actor performance.

Now for something completely different LOL: Peter Jackson really squandered a good thing with the Hobbit-trilogy. I'm still super impressed with his original LOTR-series and IMO it holds up well. It does the books justice and where it falters or gets things wrong...well, a movie is never going to be able to be exactly like the book. Which makes that Hobbit business even worse...It's messy, it's too dark and serious, it's so convoluted it practically eats itself and doesn't do the source material justice. A shame, really. So much talent wasted. Freeman is ideal casting, but was pushed aside and made into a supporting act in his own movies. Armitage is a good actor, it's not his fault that he was saddled with all that endless brooding. Lee Pace is one of the best things in this whole mess, and that's even with the script twisting the character and making him the anti-hero. He somehow manages to turn even that into a strength and make himself one of the highlights of the films. Think how fantastic he would have been if he hadn't been hampered by the script... And, and, and...That whole project is full of missed opportunities and it makes me sad.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/5/2019 at 11:01 AM, merroni said:

Black Panther wasn't that great a movie.  Don't understand all the hoopla over it.  Winter Soldier and Civil War was ten times better and nobody screamed for them to win best picture. 

The hoopla is that it took Marvel until 2018 to give a Black superhero a solo movie. A movie that has gorgeous production and costume design, relevant themes for the Black diaspora if parts of the plot are a bit formulaic, and made a fuckton of money. It took until 2019 to give a female hero, Captain Marvel, a solo movie. Black Widow, a character who has existed in the MCU almost from the beginning in 2010's Iron Man 2, won't get her solo film until 2020. And while this is old data, minorities are generally overrepresented in the movie going audience, but underrepresented in the characters in the films.* So fuck yeah, people are going to raise a fuss when a Black protagonist in the MCU manages to have a gorgeous and fairly interesting film that makes munny hunny.

And while I like Thor: Ragnarok, Thor is the single most failing upwards character in the MCU. The Thor movies until Ragnarok were terribly regarded, even the stars weren't fond of them. They had horrible Rotten Tomatoes scores. They never made nearly as much as the other films. Thor was also terribly used in Age of Ultron. And no plot in the MCU was more formulaic than Doctor Strange. By the time it arrived on the screen in 2016, we'd already seen multiple variations of arrogant guy gets his comeuppance and becomes a better person, including in Iron Man 1, 2, and 3, Thor, and Age of Ultron.

I like Winter Soldier and Civil War a lot. I find them both really messy in very bad ways. I think it's nearly settled that the Steve and Sharon romance was a terrible idea. The set up in Winter Soldier was ok, but the payoff in Civil War was a disaster.

I've been on record on how underwritten Sam and his friendship with Steve is; it's also damn near criminal considering how few characters of color there were/are. People talk about Steve and Bucky's underwritten friendship; that's nothing to compare with Steve and Sam's friendship, which was so superficially established that it must have been Snapchatted because it sure as shit didn't make it officially into the film. Prior to Bucky's death, we see Steve and Bucky after Steve's mom's funeral where Bucky invites Steve to live with his family, Bucky saves Steve outside the movie, they go to the World's Fair/Stark Expo, Steve saves Bucky, and they banter in the bar before Bucky ever goes on a mission with Steve. Whereas Sam and Steve chat after a run, Steve visits the VA and talks to Sam, Sam presumably saw the battle of New York, and Steve shows up at Sam's house. Bucky's dialogue with Steve explicitly references the length of their friendship. That element is completely absent in Sam's dialogue with Steve. It seems like at best, Sam spent maybe 90 minutes with Steve before deciding to upend his life over some shit he basically knew nothing about. In contrast with Tony and Rhodey's interactions, we see enough back and forth between them and enough historical anecdotes to figure out that they've been friends for awhile.

Furthermore, there are so many storytelling beats skipped that neither Tony nor Steve's points come across as particularly credible in Civil War. Those two are fundamentally not friends despite Tony's plaintive wails. Tony has done a shit job of establishing why anyone other than himself needs external boundaries on what he does because he's a colossal fuckup who doesn't seem to know when to stop. Steve is a sanctimonious ass who lives to pontificate without considering larger repercussions.

So my point is that Black Panther isn't that great, but neither are Winter Soldier and Civil War. At best, they are good for comic book movies. I'd put Black Panther into the top half of Marvel movies. Heck, the reviews of Infinity War have a very substantial Game of Thrones filter on them, meaning that they get overpraised for not being absolute messes when most other productions would be. That being said, I expect Black Panther to drop a little in most people's estimation in time. People tend to reevaluate as time goes on. I've seen people revisiting Iron Man 1. I don't know who thought it was a bad movie because it was always pretty solid even though it has the same 3rd act problem a lot of popcorn movies/ blockbusters have, including films like Star Wars: A New Hope.

*https://variety.com/2018/film/news/latino-asian-moviegoers-mpaa-study-1202743713/

https://womenandhollywood.com/mpaa-report-2017-women-centric-films-dominate-and-females-account-for-50-percent-of-moviegoers-417682b32375/

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Well this will all lead into my UO since we're talking Marvel. I just now got done watching Iron Man 2 after not seeing it for a while. I know it hits a lot of people's bottom lists and I don't really see why. I like it about as much as the first one and one reason is that it has Don Cheadle instead of Terrence Howard who I just find all around more likable and I feel like he and Tony make better friends. Loved Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer and while Mickey Rourke wasn't the greatest villain ever, he was fine and he didn't take over the movie. Plus, we had Pepper screaming for Tony to get in the car and lots of what I like to call lab porn. I love Tony in his lab. Good introduction for Black Widow too. She should have had her own movie a long time ago.

 

Oh and I kinda agree with the not thinking Christian Bale is all that great. Liked him in American Psycho and over time I've come to appreciate him in one of my very favorite movies Velvet Goldmine. Otherwise, meh.

Share this post


Link to post

A Star is Born (2018):

Haven't seen it yet (not interested), but someone elsewhere had this to say about Lady Gaga and the whole hype around the movie:

 

I genuinely think she’s trying to mirror the relationship of their characters and be all ingenue about the whole experience because she thinks it’ll help her with the awards. It’s just failing because she’s Lady fucking Gaga.

 

Agreed. She's been around for a decade (or more) and is an established megastar. Lady Gaga is the polar opposite of an ingenue.

I hate to be one of "those" people, but the 1954 A Star is Born is the only one for me. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I hate to be one of "those" people, but the 1954 A Star is Born is the only one for me. 

I am one of “those those” people; I like the 1954 version fine, but my favorite is the 1937 version!  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I like the 1937 and 1954 versions about  equally (though Miss Gaynor seemed to convey the dreamy naivete of an ingenue somewhat better than Miss Garland's more desperate to be liked character). The 1976, IMO, is rather the pits mainly because at no point did Miss Streisand's character  seem as though she had the slightest doubt she'd would be a star which somewhat took  away any dramatic satisfaction.  

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Blergh said:

I like the 1937 and 1954 versions about  equally (though Miss Gaynor seemed to convey the dreamy naivete of an ingenue somewhat better than Miss Garland's more desperate to be liked character). The 1976, IMO, is rather the pits mainly because at no point did Miss Streisand's character  seem as though she had the slightest doubt she'd would be a star which somewhat took  away any dramatic satisfaction.  

On second thought, I really ought to give the 1937 one a try. I know a lot of people like the '76 version, but Barbra Streisand has never done much for me (and I loathe the song "Evergreen").

Share this post


Link to post

The various versions are interesting because other than the '37 one, I think they've been kind of melded with the Star whether it's Judy, Barbra or Gaga. Can you watch Judy's meltdown about her husband's struggle with alcohol without knowing of her own troubles with substance addiction? Is it possible to watch Barbra as someone yearning to 'make it' when she's fucking Barbra? Same with Gaga. She's Lady Gaga. She's not a gamine princess fresh off the bus. 

'Evergreen' is one of those songs that I never remember the name of because I always think of it as 'Love, Soft as an Easy Chair' and, my goodness, that song is so quintessentially mid-70s Easy Listening/Adult Contemporary that I can barely deal with it. It sounds like a macrame pot holder and soft lighting and it was probably on the radio all the time when my Mom was making dinner or whatever. And it's hard for me to completely buy that 'Evergreen' was selling out stadiums as a rock star's song the same year that 'Hotel California' 'Station to Station' and 'The Ramones' came out much less a year after fucking 'Born to Run' -- come on.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say, I have absolutely no interest in any version of A Star is Born. Other than to ask, if that's the name of the movie, why do they cast already established stars in the title role? Lady Gaga has been around forever, yet I still can't name more than one or two of her songs, and I simply don't buy that the hype over this supposedly wonderful performance is anything but manufactured.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Lady Gaga was fine in the role and her voice is stunning, however, I think all the hype comes from her name recognition and the fact that for the first time as a performer she played it toned down.  Take that away and it's a good, not great, performance.  Not saying I necessarily want her removed from some short lists but to assume that's she's singled out as "the one to beat" seems a bit shortsighted considering the other performances out there.

On 1/10/2019 at 8:02 AM, Blergh said:

I like the 1937 and 1954 versions about  equally (though Miss Gaynor seemed to convey the dreamy naivete of an ingenue somewhat better than Miss Garland's more desperate to be liked character). The 1976, IMO, is rather the pits mainly because at no point did Miss Streisand's character  seem as though she had the slightest doubt she'd would be a star which somewhat took  away any dramatic satisfaction.  

I'm partial to 1954 myself but I have nothing against the original or the 2018 remake.   I don't think any of them are perfect, to be honest, but it's hard for me to watch Judy Garland in anything and not be drawn in. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

@kiddo82 I agree with your assessment of Lady Gaga's performance and the shortsighted assumptions. Honestly, after watching her in interviews she comes off as a bit extra over the whole thing. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The thing about it is that Ali wasn't even portrayed as a fresh young ingenue. Her character backstory was that she had made a previous attempt at becoming a star but didn't have any takers for her demos because she was deemed to not have the right look. I actually liked that a lot because it felt like an alternative universe where Lady Gaga just failed to take off and stayed in the gay clubs. She wasn't playing 21 and naive. She seemed to be playing 30 and a never-was.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

I felt like this version of ASIB was more about Jackson's downfall than Ali's rise to the top.  It was simply the stronger story line, imo, which is why I support Bradley's nominations and wouldn't mind at all if he won any of them* .  Gaga was very good in her part and I can accept her nominations, but, as I've said a couple of times, I'm shocked that she was ever considered a front runner. 

*Nor would I mind if Rami won and would understand if Christian won, even though I'm rooting for the other two (Rami first, with Bradley a very close second).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a little confused about the criticism of stars being cast in A Star Is Born...they're acting!  Isn't pretending the essence of the job? 

Edited by spaceytraci1208
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/12/2019 at 8:42 AM, methodwriter85 said:

The thing about it is that Ali wasn't even portrayed as a fresh young ingenue. Her character backstory was that she had made a previous attempt at becoming a star but didn't have any takers for her demos because she was deemed to not have the right look. I actually liked that a lot because it felt like an alternative universe where Lady Gaga just failed to take off and stayed in the gay clubs. She wasn't playing 21 and naive. She seemed to be playing 30 and a never-was.

Lady Gaga was pretty candid in the beginning of her career about how she needed all of the outrageous costumes and meat dresses because she was told that she wasn't hot enough to make it in the music business and that she needed a gimmick.

It was originally supposed to be Beyonce and there's never really been a moment when Beyonce wasn't a huge star. She's been hugely successful since 15. The role makes less sense with her than Lady Gaga.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Lady Gaga was pretty candid in the beginning of her career about how she needed all of the outrageous costumes and meat dresses because she was told that she wasn't hot enough to make it in the music business and that she needed a gimmick.

I always wondered if that was the case and had no idea she was open about it!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

It was originally supposed to be Beyonce and there's never really been a moment when Beyonce wasn't a huge star. She's been hugely successful since 15. The role makes less sense with her than Lady Gaga.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but these movies weren't documentaries or biopics of the actresses who starred in the lead role, I'm at a loss why so much criticism as to how the actresses portraying them or actresses considered to portray them not being plain enough/too attractive, etc., would  even be an issue. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

14 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Lady Gaga was pretty candid in the beginning of her career about how she needed all of the outrageous costumes and meat dresses because she was told that she wasn't hot enough to make it in the music business and that she needed a gimmick.

She shouldn't have gone into pop, then. That's always seemed pretty shallow to me. IMO, the metal scene appreciates lungs over looks. She could have fit in nicely with people like Floor Jansen, Cristina Scabbia, or Sharon den Adel. Hell, she could have gone the full Angela Gossow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but these movies weren't documentaries or biopics of the actresses who starred in the lead role, I'm at a loss why so much criticism as to how the actresses portraying them or actresses considered to portray them not being plain enough/too attractive, etc., would  even be an issue. 

I think the criticism becomes more a testament to their acting ability and the overall quality of the movie.  If the audience can’t get past “This is Lady Gaga pretending to be an overlooked singer,” that’s on her and the director IMO.  

My example is always that if “Frankie and Johnny” had been a better movie, I might have come closer to believing Michelle Pfeiffer was an unattractive woman stunned that someone wants to be in a relationship with her.  But, alas, it isn’t and I don’t.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Joe said:

She shouldn't have gone into pop, then. That's always seemed pretty shallow to me. IMO, the metal scene appreciates lungs over looks. She could have fit in nicely with people like Floor Jansen, Cristina Scabbia, or Sharon den Adel. Hell, she could have gone the full Angela Gossow.

Maybe she doesn't like metal?

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but these movies weren't documentaries or biopics of the actresses who starred in the lead role, I'm at a loss why so much criticism as to how the actresses portraying them or actresses considered to portray them not being plain enough/too attractive, etc., would even be an issue. 

That's an interesting point because a number of the posts in the "A Star is Born" thread talk about how hard it was to see Lady Gaga after all of the work she's had on her face and believe that Ally was a sad sidelined mouse. If Lady Gaga's looks make it hard for viewers to see past her physical appearance, then Beyonce's make it impossible. She's had a more than 20 year career where she was  always been thought of beautiful and glamorous.

Furthermore, she can't act. I don't think Lady Gaga is any great shakes as an actress, but Beyonce is actually bad. Nor do I think she has the commitment to acting to undergo a Charlize Theron type transformation, but I don't think the film really requires that level of effort. It does require something. One of the very legitimate criticisms of Babs' Star is that her own success and vanity got in the way of truly depicting Esther as a struggling artist because 99% of Esther's wardrobe is Barbra's own successful diva clothing. It's actually in the credits.

I guess my point is that while Lady Gaga has very obvious deficits as an actress, Beyonce's are greater. Furthermore, Gaga's history which mirrors that of her character makes her slightly better equipped to identify with and portray that part of Ally's story. There was a reason why Beyonce was cast in the Diana Ross part and Jennifer Hudson was cast as Effie in Dreamgirls. If you can't cast people who can act, at least cast people who have that lived experience so they can tap into their own history and emotions when they need to.

Edited by HunterHunted
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, HunterHunted said:

That's an interesting point because a number of the posts in the "A Star is Born" thread talk about how hard it was to see Lady Gaga after all of the work she's had on her face and believe that Ally was a sad sidelined mouse. If Lady Gaga's looks make it hard for viewers to see past her physical appearance, then Beyonce's make it impossible. She's had a more than 20 year career where she was  always been thought of beautiful and glamorous.

Furthermore, she can't act. I don't think Lady Gaga is any great shakes as an actress, but Beyonce is actually bad. Nor do I think she has the commitment to acting to undergo a Charlize Theron type transformation, but I don't think the film really requires that level of effort. It does require something. One of the very legitimate criticisms of Babs' Star is that her own success and vanity got in the way of truly depicting Esther as a struggling artist because 99% of Esther's wardrobe is Barbra's own successful diva clothing. It's actually in the credits.

I guess my point is that while Lady Gaga has very obvious deficits as an actress, Beyonce's are greater. Furthermore, Gaga's history which mirrors that of her character makes her slightly better equipped to identify with and portray that part of Ally's story. There was a reason why Beyonce was cast in the Diana Rose part and Jennifer Hudson was cast as Effie in Dreamgirls. If you can't cast people who can act, at least cast people who have that lived experience so they can tap into their own history and emotions when they need to.

Oh, I agree that Beyonce can't act for shit. She was HORRIBLE in Dream Girls. And I read the comments in the "A Star is Born" thread. The comments sounded like they thought the movies, all versions, were documentaries or biopics. It was just very confusing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I feel kind of bad admitting this, because Penny Marshall just passed away recently and I love that an almost-all women/women-led movie like A League of Their Own is the highest-grossing baseball film of all time, and I DO really love it, too, but at the end of the day, Field of Dreams is not only my favorite baseball-themed movie (of the ones I've seen, there are MANY more I need to see), thinking back, it really is my favorite movie of all time. Few endings of any movie resonate with me more or hit me harder.

And seriously, if you ever get the chance to go to the movie site in Eastern Iowa, FOR GOD'S SAKE, GO! One of the best days of my life. I'll never forget it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, UYI said:

I feel kind of bad admitting this, because Penny Marshall just passed away recently and I love that an almost-all women/women-led movie like A League of Their Own is the highest-grossing baseball film of all time, and I DO really love it, too, but at the end of the day, Field of Dreams is not only my favorite baseball-themed movie (of the ones I've seen, there are MANY more I need to see), thinking back, it really is my favorite movie of all time. Few endings of any movie resonate with me more or hit me harder.

And seriously, if you ever get the chance to go to the movie site in Eastern Iowa, FOR GOD'S SAKE, GO! One of the best days of my life. I'll never forget it. 

Field of Dreams is my favorite movie, too.  I always cry when his father shows up.  Not saying it's the best movie, but it's my favorite.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, UYI said:

Field of Dreams is not only my favorite baseball-themed movie (of the ones I've seen, there are MANY more I need to see), thinking back, it really is my favorite movie of all time. Few endings of any movie resonate with me more or hit me harder.

It's my second favorite movie, The Natural is my favorite but, Field of Dreams is a special movie, I just love it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size