I'm sorry but... There Will Be Blood>>>> NCFOM

True, you've got a point there.

 

I think the Academy just didn't want to give another Spielberg WW2 film the Best Picture Oscar five years after Schindler's list.

I enjoyed There Will Be Blood a little more than No Country for Old Men.

NCFOM was good, but as far as Coen brother movies goes, definitely not my favorite. I'm a big fan of Raising Arizona and Fargo.

 

Miller's Crossing is my fav Coen Bros movie. It shits on NCFOM.

 

Miller's Crossing (which wasn't even nominated for anything), shits on most movies ever made, so that's nothing to be ashamed of.

 

Well that's all well and good, but you forgot one thing. Although one was cliched and predictable only one was really entertaining, and I'm afraid it wasn't the one that made you think. So like I said, people who want to look like intellectuals will always try to paint such a movie as being better when the fact is it simply is not. More often than not enterainment value is more important than empty intangibles like real characters, real challenges or how much the film made you think.

There are plenty of brilliant films that deal with real people real problems and they make you think. Sideways just wasn't one of them, like I said, it was aiight.

 

if you think everyone who says they liked sideways is just being pretentious then you're operating with a fairly blinkered view of the world mate.

"more often than not entertainment value is more important than empty intangibles like real characters, real challenges or how much the film made you think." but those last three things are usually what entertains me in a movie. :dunno: if sideways were on tv tonight i'd prob watch it; i never want to see million dollar panchod again in my life.

 

I never felt the need to watch MDB. I have seen Big Trouble In Little China many, many times and will most likely watch it 20 more times in my life. Movies are about what you enjoy, not what society says is art.

Alot of these best pictures can get fucked. I'd rather watch The Goonies or Snatch.

 

nobody in this thread is suggesting otherwise

 

I never said anyone was. Stating an opinion.

 

:Ramonza:

 

There's probably something to that theory... although The Godfather I and II didn't seem to suffer by the same logic.

But even if it were true - Shakespeare in Love was a truly shitty movie. To this day, I don't understand the buzz that surrounded it, or why Miramax wasted $15 million to basically pay off the Oscar committee (which was disguised as a Oscar marketing push).

I don't really remember what other notable movies came out in '98, other than remembering that nothing really came close to Saving Private Ryan that year. There were a few others that I really liked (American History X, Truman Show, Out of Sight), but wouldn't dare argue that any were better than SPR.

On this topic - even if TWBB was better, it wasn't a robbery. I've disagreed with nearly every selection so far in the 2000's, but this one is a coin flip as far as I'm concerned.

I'd say the same for Forrest Gump/Pulp Fiction - I liked the latter a lot more, but don't take huge issue with the outcome. The biggest robbery that year was Samuel L. Jackson not winning Best Supporting Actor, in fact one of the worst calls ever for that category

 

I don't disagree that Sideways is a bit overrated, but I think you're going a bit extreme here.

Million Dollar Baby was a better movie than most boxing fans will give credit for, but wouldn't say it was far superior to Sideways or really any other great movie that year.

 

Three WWII movies were nominated that year. Probably caused a split that let "Shakespeare In Love" win.

"Life Is Beautiful" was a piece of shit but got a lot of sympathy votes for Benigni, however "Thin Red Line" was right up there quality wise with "Private Ryan"...........and I've actually grown to prefer it over the years.

Though if you were going to pick a costume drama............."Elizabeth" was also nominated and was superior to "Shakespeare".

 

Ah that's right, I forgot those movies came out that year. I thought Thin Red Line came out much earlier for some reason - like a decade earlier. Not sure what movie I'm thinking of.

 

Both are classics but I prefer "Thin Red Line". I have no issues with anybody who would prefer "Private Ryan". I wouldn't dare call it superior, I just enjoy it more.

They are completely different movies, even though they deal with similar subjects. Ryan is more visceral and Red Line is more cerebral.

I've seen plenty of people say they hate "Thin Red Line", and that it's too slow.............. and if you asked me in 1999 which one I preferred I'd probably say "Private Ryan".

Now when I run across them on cable, "Private Ryan" comes across to me as "seen it, done that". "Thin Red Line" is hypnotic and engrossing every time I see it.

 

I'm still confusing myself for some reason...

Was this the war movie that starred Sean Penn, or just featured him in a bit part? I think the one I had in mind earlier was the one in which he starred, though if it's not this then I don't remember the name of the other one.

 

He just had a bit part. You're thinking of "Casualties of War" with Michael J. Fox. I think it was a DePalma flick.

Another very good movie. Fox might have been slightly miscast, but Penn and the rest of the cast was great in it.

 

THAT'S the one!

And yes, I agree completely - right down to "What the fuck was Michael J. Fox doing in this film?!"

I think it came out around the same time as Born on the 4th of July, which received far greater fanfare - I guess not unlike Thin Red Line kind of getting buried under Saving Private Ryan.

 

I just realized why you might be mixing them up. Several of the same actors were in both movies, even though they were a decade apart.

 

I only saw Sideways once and to be honest I barely remember much about it. All I do remember is it was just a pretty mediocre drama that wasn't really about much. In fact I had to look it up when Rooster listed it and after recognizing and remembering it my first thought was shock. Shock at the realization that such a mediocre drama got an Oscar nomination when I've seen so many far better ones that didn't.

Like I said it wasn't the worst movie I ever saw, but it was slow and pointless enough that if I had had to leave in the middle of it to do something, I probably wouldn't have bothered to finish it.

 

Is Sideways that bag of shiite about two middle aged fellas cry arseing their way around California vineyards?

 

My point was more towards Million Dollar Baby not being a good enough movie to claim it shits on anything else. But it's just a matter of opinion.

I agree that life wouldn't have been any different had I never seen Sideways. I didn't hate it, but also never got the buzz surrounding it.

 

I've been to that area - that was actually a selling point from Gary Shaw's people in swaying me to go to a fight at Chumash Casino a long time ago (although it's not why I made the trip). I guess in fairness, I didn't watch the movie after that, only before then.