Oscars

[Tailback U]

hey, mine too. AB is so sweet. Mainly cause Spackey is just flat our great, but Revolutinoary Road might be my all-time favorite.,

You and I don't see eye-to-eye when it comes to film.

So far in this thread you've said you consider Slumdog Millionaire, Million Dollar Baby, and Revolutionary Road some of your favorites and best movies. All good movies and very well done, but neither of them would come close to my top 50 (favorites).

[Buzzman]

Where do I say i like Slumdog and Million Dollar Bab? I dont like MDB at all and SLumdog while good wasnt even the best last year.

[nflman2033]

Slumdog>The Hurt Locker, other than that I'd agree.

Anyways, I'd much rather watch a well told science fiction film then something like Up in the Air. I'd rather lose myself in something completely foreign to me like District 9, Star Trek, and Avatar then watch something similar to Up in the Air.

Can't say I agree, Not seen enough to say if Hurt Locker was best picture this year, but watching it I can see it as a Best Picture movie, I just can't see it with Slumdog, no way do i think that movie should have won best Picture.

[Tailback U]

Where do I say i like Slumdog and Million Dollar Bab? I dont like MDB at all and SLumdog while good wasnt even the best last year.

My bad, confused you with Mgoblue.

[Nukleopatra]

You and I don't see eye-to-eye when it comes to film.

So far in this thread you've said you consider Slumdog Millionaire, Million Dollar Baby, and Revolutionary Road some of your favorites and best movies. All good movies and very well done, but neither of them would come close to my top 50 (favorites).

The problem with this is, most people here seem to have put a limit on the type of movies they watch - ''anything prior to 1989, no thanks.'' Movies like ''Usual Suspects'' and ''Revolutionary Road'' shouldn't be on any serious top 50 list. I couldn't find a place for either of those movies in my top 100. This is why I tend to favor the more popular movie critics over regular movie goers. I want an honest and accurate break down on every movie, especially the bad ones.. There's nothing worse, movie wise, than to have some 20 year old guy saying - ''Dude, you gotta see the new Rambo flick, it's fucking awesome.''

I turn to my favorite movie critics, where I find out how completely ridiculous and retarded that ''Rambo'' really is... and guess who ended up being right?

[calgaryballer]

The problem with this is, most people here seem to have put a limit on the type of movies they watch - ''anything prior to 1989, no thanks.'' Movies like ''Usual Suspects'' and ''Revolutionary Road'' shouldn't be on any serious top 50 list. I couldn't find a place for either of those movies in my top 100. This is why I tend to favor the more popular movie critics over regular movie goers. I want an honest and accurate break down on every movie, especially the bad ones.. There's nothing worse, movie wise, than to have some 20 year old guy saying - ''Dude, you gotta see the new Rambo flick, it's fucking awesome.''

I turn to my favorite movie critics, where I find out how completely ridiculous and retarded that ''Rambo'' really is... and guess who ended up being right?

At the same time, thats why I appreciated someone like Ebert. If he say a movie like, for example, Cloverfield (and this is a generalization). He may say, "this movie is over the top, the plot is silly, etc BUT, it can still be an enjoyable experience for fans of the genre."

Just because a movie is 'bad' from a true cinematic viewpoint, does not mean it has to be unenjoyable. I hate those critics that see something like Rambo and go 'oh, a Rambo movie (in fake British accent)' and walk away.

[Nukleopatra]

At the same time, thats why I appreciated someone like Ebert. If he say a movie like, for example, Cloverfield (and this is a generalization). He may say, "this movie is over the top, the plot is silly, etc BUT, it can still be an enjoyable experience for fans of the genre."

Just because a movie is 'bad' from a true cinematic viewpoint, does not mean it has to be unenjoyable. I hate those critics that see something like Rambo and go 'oh, a Rambo movie (in fake British accent)' and walk away.

Ebert's been going soft lately - I think he gave Garfield 3 out of 4 stars.

But yeah, I know what you're saying. If a person were to say ''I enjoyed the hell out of Taken, but it wasn't very good,'' I wouldn't say anything about it. It's the people who are incapable of enjoying a shitty movie, without recommending it as one of the best movies of the year, that I have a problem with. Is it really that difficult? I bought ''Mr. Brooks,'' and I liked it - But it blew ass.

It's quite easy to enjoy shit, while seeing just how shitty it really is.

[Palooza]

Ebert's been going soft lately - I think he gave Garfield 3 out of 4 stars.

Little Rock: Any regrets?

Bill Murray: Garfield, maybe.

[Nukleopatra]

Little Rock: Any regrets?

Bill Murray: Garfield, maybe.

Bill Murray can turn even the worst shit into gold, in my eyes.......

but Garfield? I couldn't even finish it.

[calgaryballer]

Bill Murray can turn even the worst shit into gold, in my eyes.......

but Garfield? I couldn't even finish it.

I am disappointed you even started it...

[Nukleopatra]

I am disappointed you even started it...

If you only knew half the shit I watch. I go completely off the radar half the time - I'm talking Brain Damage films here, the cheesiest horror films imaginable.

And I love it.

[calgaryballer]

If you only knew half the shit I watch. I go completely off the radar half the time - I'm talking Brain Damage films here, the cheesiest horror films imaginable.

And I love it.

Bad horror is completely different than Garfield. Garfield is garbage trying to pass as Hollywood cinema. Stuff like Mega Shark v Giant Octopus is just bat shit crazy and enjoyable in and of itself

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

If you only knew half the shit I watch. I go completely off the radar half the time - I'm talking Brain Damage films here, the cheesiest horror films imaginable.

And I love it.

SyFy channel specials and worse do not compare to shizz like Garfield...Garfield is shown on a loop in one of the inner rings of hell.

Clash of the Dinosaurs is show in the waiting room of Heaven for the lulz

[dope]

so i haven't even seen the blindside, but there is no way sandra bullock should have won over gabourey sidibe. the performance she gave as a basically amateur was stellar. (but then again i can't stand sandra bullock either)

also howard stern might be a dick for saying it, but i agree, she should have won the award, cause she's likely to never have another chance again. its like the academy said "oh she's a great actress, she'll have other chances in the future."

i could be wrong, but i just fear hollywood's obsession with body image will prevent her from getting another role that is oscar worthy. and hell it might have just been lightening in a bottle, and will be impossible for this girl to replicate.

acting isn't like the nba where you can give kobe the mvp over lebron one year cause lebron's young and will get his someday.

[Palooza]

so i haven't even seen the blindside, but there is no way sandra bullock should have won over gabourey sidibe. the performance she gave as a basically amateur was stellar. (but then again i can't stand sandra bullock either)

also howard stern might be a dick for saying it, but i agree, she should have won the award, cause she's likely to never have another chance again. its like the academy said "oh she's a great actress, she'll have other chances in the future."

i could be wrong, but i just fear hollywood's obsession with body image will prevent her from getting another role that is oscar worthy. and hell it might have just been lightening in a bottle, and will be impossible for this girl to replicate.

acting isn't like the nba where you can give kobe the mvp over lebron one year cause lebron's young and will get his someday.

Sandra Bullock probably won't have another chance either.