The Wolf of Wall Street

Bullshit... He's a ham... He's not believable

There's got to be 30 films made in 1997 I would watch twice before watching an hour of Titanic

There's got to be 30 films made in 2000 I would watch twice before watching an hour of Gladiator

 

I got to disagree with you, my young padawan:

Compare DeNiro's tour de force portrayal of young Vito Corleone and as Travis Bickle to ANYTHING Leonardo DiCaprio has done in all his resume and you'll see nothing comes close. 'Not much range...' ?I sense a great disturbance in the Force. If anyone portray similar characters is DiCaprio, not DeNiro.

 

alm:athetic:

 

9.5/10 near perfect. Only downside too long ..especially to watch in a theater

 

Stands to reason if I prefer 30 FUCKING FILMS to the "Best Picture" that I'm not convinced it is the BEST Picture, doesn't it, you fucking mentalist???

LOL, Pacino became a ham in old age... Young Pacino was anything but a ham

Nicolas Cage is fucking unwatchable

 

You thought "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" was a wonderful film

 

Exactly: 'mugging bag of tricks'.

 

1997:
Amistad, Boogie Nights, Conspiracy Theory, Austin Powers, Donnie Brasco, Fierce Creatures, The Game, Good Will Hunting, Grosse Pointe Blank, The Ice Storm, L.A. Confidential, Waiting For Guffman... 13 off the top of my head I would happily watch twice before sitting through Titanic... The academy is too up its own ass to ever give the award to a silly film (Austin Powers, Conspiracy Theory, The Game) so some of these would never win despite being far more entertaining than Titanic... But L.A. Confidential is easily worthy of the honor if you want to stick with films deemed serious enough to please the academy... Same goes for Brasco... Both films were a million times smarter than Titanic... Titanic could have been written by a 12 year old girl, just like Avatar (which I'm sure YOU fucking adored because of it's special effects)

2000 over Gladiator?

American Psycho, Best In Show, Meet The Parents, O Brother, Where Art Thou? (despite it being my least favorite Coen film, thanks to Clooney), Requiem For A Dream, Scary Movie (I 'd several times), Traffic... All of these were more enjoyable than the cliched, heavy-handed bullshit that was Gladiator... Again, nothing "silly" ever wins best picture, so the only real candidates out of these are Traffic, Requiem and Brother... All 3 are better films

Pretty shit years for films, it seems... I'm certainly not alone in disliking both "Titanic" and "Gladiator"

 

"Complete Film" = Cliche-stuffed storyline, wooden performances (courtesy of a director who understands human emotions about as profoundly as the average Crocodile), turgid length, one-dimensional characters, pretty clothes and a really neat sinking boat that causes explosions and stuff like KABLAM! and BOOM! and like, like Celine Dion and shit... oooh, oooh! John Williams waters down Wagner for the 900th time, too!

Titanic is a Philistine's delight... Anybody that thinks that film is a great film and that somehow it enhances the statue awarded for "Best Picture" is a MOOK

L.A. Confidential was its superior in every way and unlike the tired and predictable Gladiator, Crowe was superb in it

If you think Titanic is a great film, you must be amazed for hours by shiny objects... If you think it is a better film than L.A. Confidential, you are even dumber than that

As for Austin Powers, I already said that I would never expect a comedy to win best picture, so nice try at the strawman. Still, it's far more enjoyable than the bloated special-effects soap opera that was Titanic. I don't let the Academy decide for me what good art is or what is and isn't entertaining.

 

:nono: Titanic gots houses, it gots cars, yo what you got?

I think Di Caprio is a fine actor but I think his talents have been somewhat wasted by his serial participation in bloated, unsophisticated movies by big-named movie directors who are in creative decline and have been for a while, and/or grand projects where more money is spent on the marketing and set-design than the script writing (great gatsby?). Tarantino can only string together some reasonable set-pieces, and his characters tend to be one--dimensional movie archetypes or cliches - I enjoyed inglorious bastards but again, it felt like several movies knitted into a three hour narrative. Scorcese has seriously lost his mojo, his movies are plodding biopics or goodfellas pastiches, the only exceptions being Hugo (which didnt feel like a movie by him at all) and the boring and un-suspenseful Shutter Island. Apparently, he's making a movie about Sinatra next, yawn.

DeNiro just doesn't give a shit anymore, but that ten yr stretch between mean streets and king of comedy is among the best actor resumes OAT.

 

Titanic became such colossal cultural behemoth that many guys, who watched and enjoyed it when it first came out, began to bash it because suddenly it became 'a chick flick' in their eyes when women were openly salivating at DiCaprio as the new heartthrob king and watching the film three times. But truth is that few films get recognized as an instant classic upon release. And like Star Wars, Ben Hur or Gone With The Wind the moviegoing public & critics alike recognized Titanic as a classic in old fashioned Hollywood mode...which is an accurate description of James Cameron masterpiece.

Gladiator is just a great film that had no rival among its close competitors (a bunch of really good films, but not great). Ridley Scott comeback film that made stars of its two main actors who at the time weren't that popular, again a throwback to great days of Hollywood epic historical sagas with a simple but satisfying story. That was the year that it was cool to name your newborn boy 'Maximus', a name choice that would have been laughed or questioned at before.

Both Titanic & Gladiator are two great film classics that the Academy of Arts & Sciences wasn't blind enough to not give its highest award as Best Picture. One of those lucky cases were the Academy got it right.

 

Wolf of Wall Street Martin Scorcese returns to form in this highly entertaining film about greed, sex & drugs all in a serious, but light comedic tone. The meteoric rise to millions of dollars for the main character through fraudulent tactics is displayed with such gusto that both director and actor seemed to be having the time of their lives. There so much sex, nudity, drug use in this film that it could had been slapped with an NC-17 rating, but it didn't because it is Scorcese and DiCaprio. Speaking of Dicaprio: this guy deserves a freaking Oscar for this role. His best in years. This is a character driven story and diCaprio is almost in every scene of the film and delivers memorable performances in every freaking scene! Hands down: Leonardo DiCaprio will get an Oscar this year...unless the academy decides to reward Joaquin Phoenix for 'Her' just to lure him back to the elite club he has been trying to elude. In all, this is a very good film, one of the best of 2013 ( that could have been better if it wasn't so long: three hours!) and one of Scorcese's more entertaining films in recent years. 8.7/10

 

Shut the fuck up

I hated both of those films the moment I watched them

 

worrd

 

funnier film, more original, more entertaining... They already have awards for editing and set design and costumes as well as direction (yeah great direction of those wooden characters, utterly amazing:wack:) ... You rely on the Academy to tell you what is good and what isn't

 

We expected nothing less from you.

 

BTW Margot Robbie as Naomi is getting the kind of rave reviews young Michelle Pfeiffer received when she did Scarface: a beautiful gal who not only can act, but also steals every scene she is in!

 

Yeah, I have good taste like that

 

Leonardo DiCaprio won the Golden Globe for Best Actor...in a comedy or musical?

 

Yup. I loved DiCaprio's opening acceptance speech line of being an honor to be counted 'among my fellow nominee comedians...':l2:

 

Nice strawman, pussy

Anyway, L.A. Confidential was 10 times the artistic achievment that the bloated shitstain Titanic was

 

I gotta agree with Cdogg on this one. I never thought much of Dicaprio as an actor. He's one of those guys who I watch but am rarely impressed with his performance. IMO Dicaprio much like Will Smith has been in a lot of great movies but he is not a great actor. He is a good actor, but I've never seen much range in him since before Titanic. And his screaming when his character is upset or in grief is usually cringe worthy. Don't get me wrong I love the guy, but it's mostly because he's been in some great movies, you put him in some average turds and he's completely replaceable.

And for those that say Pesci has no range, how can a guy go from being a scary-ass convincing villain one minute (Casino/Good Fellas) and a funny-ass convincing comedy idiot the next (Home Alone, Lethal Weapons, My Cousin Vinny) and not have range? Let's also not forget Pesci's role in Ragin Bull.