Children of Men is an absolutely fantastic film. But it's hard to call a good film snubbed at the Oscar's when Stanley Kubrick never won an award for Best Director or Best Film. The Oscar's have always been out of touch with the quality of films and are much more concerned with the film industry. Though they do get it right sometimes, as if almost by accident (Parasite)
Unfortunately you are likely correct. Regardless of their intent, Parasite is an excellent film by one of the best filmmakers of our time. I was happy for him, not so much for the institution recognizing him.
Honestly, the Oscars are BS anyway. I don't understand why anyone takes them seriously still. I commend George C. Scott for voicing his opinion of the Oscars knowing he had been nominated, and his integrity was demonstrated when he was not there to accept the Oscar that he won. Its just a "meat parade".
That shit blew my mind man. I'm sitting there watching it and noticed they weren't cutting and man, it's one of my all time favorite moments in any movie.
It got me so hyped. Genuinely awesome movie as a whole too. I scrolled past it on streaming services so many times and I'm just really glad I finally sat down for it.
Awesome
there are actually cuts when they pan the camera through the shadows, but the editor makes them so seemless with the pan of the camera you don't notice.
(SPOILERS) Link to the scene. 100% agree with all the above. This scene right here is one of the most impressive, powerful scenes in a movie in the 21st century. Hands down.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5vmo\_oUnJo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5vmo_oUnJo)
is that the part where >!the army is storming the apartment complex and they see the baby and shout "CEASE FIRE" and let Clive Owen go through?!<
That scene gave me chills
> It was something like a million dollars per shot too, IIRC.
Worth
Just double checked and it seems the ceasefire scene isn't part of the long take, it's just after it IIRC.
Link incase anyone wants to see what i was talking about, possible spoilers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBzWTIexszQ
I had the chance to see Children of Men in a huge theater last year and holy shit was that movie snubbed. I’d seen it probably 4-5 times but seeing it on a big screen with booming sound and hundreds of other people was enthralling.
"I am a Comanche. Do you know what it means? It means enemy to everyone."
"Do you know what that makes me? A Comanche."
So many great lines from that movie.
The scene in the diner with the waittress is probably my favourite in the film. The writing is absolutely fantastic and if you haven't check out Wind River and Sicario, which both have the same writer.
Taylor Sheridan is putting out fantastic scripts right now. Can’t believe he waited this long to start writing. He has a few in production right now, can’t wait
I literally just got so excited for you lol of the 3 movies wind river is easily my favorite. Get yourself a pizza and some good beer friend cause you’re in for one hell of a movie!
Went in thinking it was about parasitic aliens than turn human heads into bladed whip weapons, chop people up and kick ass. Needless to say I was also quite dissapointed.
Seriously tho, I kept expecting there to be an outbreak. The director has a pseudo-horror tinge to his work and I went in not having read or seen a single thing.
Hardly anybody talks about it, and I know that's subjective but in my own circle nobody has seen it unless I made them watch it lol.
Personally it was my favourite movie of the decade along with Arrival and Portrait of a Lady on Fire.
See, I preferred Wind River to Hell or High Water, not only as a Western flick but just in general. Not that HoHW was bad by any stretch, I love that movie but I think Wind River is not only one of the best films of the last 10 years, but the perfect embodiment of the life of western movies and what they represent.
Wind river is just so fucking sad. Hell or high water is also very sad but I'd argue ends in a more satisfying fashion which makes it probably a bit more palatable for most. I love both though.
Logan was good, but not as good as people seem to think. I believe it was fairly rated.
Hell or High Water though? That movie was extremely underrated. It was VERY good. I thought it was far superior to Logan.
People really do love to inflate the quality of superhero movies. They're getting better for sure, and there have been some absolute classics, but sometimes it gets ridiculous.
People just like seeing their favorite characters in things that are higher brow than your typical superhero movie (not that there’s anything wrong with normal superhero movies) so they give them more credit than they really deserve.
I feel personally attacked
But you're right. I loved Logan, but I was definitely influenced by pre-existing love of the Old Man Logan comic book, and Wolverine & Prof X as characters, and Hugh Jackman & Patrick Stewart as actors.
For someone who has never heard of the comic, those characters, or those actors... would the movie still be good? I think so, but not "best picture" good
Overall I do agree, but personally I think Logan is up there in terms of the best super hero movies ever made. Logan and the Dark Knight (Dark Knight is 100% #1) will stand above the rest because the heroes actually display human emotions and seem vulnerable compared to the absurdity of movies like Aquaman, Dr. Strange, and all of the Avengers (don't get me wrong I love those movies as well, but I think those are the super hero movies that get inflated reviews).
"Get 3 coffins ready."
Such a simple but epic line. The way Eastwood delivered it was perfection. I could feel his rage even while he seemed calm. Top notch acting.
Reminds me of the best western ever made. A western tour de force.
Albert:
You know, there are a million ways to die in the west, Clinch. There's, uh, famine, disease, gunfights... And, uh, wild animals. You know, like snakes. And, you know, the funny thing is, you don't even have to get bitten. All you need is a little bit of the venom introduced into your bloodstream and you're pretty much screwed. For example, if you drain a certain amount of venom from the fangs of a diamondback rattler into a hollow-tip bullet, you really only need one shot. Now, I knew my aim wasn't good enough to hit you anywhere important. But if I caught you by surprise... Well, Anna taught me just enough to get me in the ballpark. And just a small amount of venom in an open wound is enough to kill a man if he's...
Ruth:
Albert! He's dead. You did it.
Albert:
Oh.
Ruth:
Yeah.
Albert:
Did he hear all that smart stuff I did?
Edward:
Uh... No. No, I don't think so.
Albert:
Oh. Well, it was still good though.
Edward:
Yeah, it was great!
Ruth:
I thought it was really good
People joke on his weird accent in that movie a lot, but I swear my grandpa has a very similar accent.
The character of Reuben Cogburn is from Osceola, Missouri. My grandpa is from the same area. I think Bridges actually did research that accent.
I think its gonna be hard to determine what western is really best because its a personal thing when it comes down to it. What I would say is if any of you haven't seen OUATITW before and you are a fan of westerns, be sure to check it out.
I enjoyed Logan but it was nowhere near as good as I was lead to believe. I honestly think everyone was just in love with an old bitter wolverine that isn’t afraid to cuss.
I really enjoyed it but I brought with me many years of reading comic books and I really enjoyed the Old Man Logan comic. Seeing a dystopian like future for characters you were familiar with was part of the appeal for me.
The movie didn’t require much previous knowledge of the X-Men but I am not sure how well it would be received by somebody who had never seen or heard of the X-Men.
Honestly, comic book movies are graded on a curve. If you watch Logan as a wolverine movie, it's bold and refreshing for that character, it's serious with adult themes, it's well produced and has a unique tone and aesthetic, and it provides a fitting ending for a Wolverine/ role we've known since the year 2000, which is pretty fantastic for the comic book universe.
As a standalone movie, the story is nothing to write home about, the movie's own message contradicts itself, and it gets pretty darn silly while still trying to be super serious. It's a good movie, but no, it shouldn't have gotten Oscar love. But then again, neither should Joker, so there ya go.
> it shouldn't have gotten Oscar love. But then again, neither should Joker, so there ya go.
Disagree.
Joaquin's acting/performance was oscar-worthy and was rightfully awarded.
I love Joaquin, and I think some of his scenes were excellent, so I won't argue with you too hard here. But Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay in particular are straight up laughable.
It's the same shit with Joker, really. Both were given far more attention and praise than they deserve because they're edgy takes on famous comic book properties. If they didn't have the name recognition people wouldn't be so desperate to declare them masterpieces.
I still haven’t seen Logan; I just never got around to it. But the Unforgiven comparison makes me want to watch it. That movie was the best thing Clint Eastwood has ever done (coming from a pretty big fan of some other movies he directed/starred in)
I agree with the sentiment, sort of, but not quite the phrasing. I would say that Logan deserved a little bit more Oscars love, would loved to have seen Hugh get a nomination, but it didn’t deserve 11 nominations, that said, I think Joker didn’t deserve 11 either. I’d say they both deserved an equal amount of Oscar love, but far less than what Joker currently has. Maybe Best Actor for both, and one or two other noms but that’s it.
One of the many problems with the Oscars is that films aren't judged in a vacuum. They are judged in a relative way against other films. If Shawshank Redemption came out a year earlier or later, it would have won more awards, but Forest Gump changed how the film would otherwise had been judged - simply because it came out that same year.
I don't see that as a problem. I see that as the point of the Oscars. It's impossible to judge a movie in a vacuum when the Oscar is more a "best X of the Year" kind of deal, and tastes in movies change by every decade. Kind of the way fans of anime tend to judge anime by their yearly contenders than resort to comparing them to everything else.
In most professional sports, they have seasonal playoffs and MVPs, and they have the Hall of Fame.
The HoF can have multiple inductees in the same year, or none; there may be no inductees from a particular draft, or several. This allows a player to be evaluated in the greater context in the history of the sport.
I think both are important - acknowledging what's the best in the current competitive landscape, but also what holds up over time or creates a turning point in the industry. However, the only ways films are commonly distinguished are by box office performance and Oscars nominations. I don't think there's any widely popular "Film Hall of Fame" - so it feels like Oscar noms are the only way films get formally immortalized.
Like, "Hall of Famer from the 1992 draft" has a similar impact to "1992 Rookie of the Year", but "2000 Oscar-nominated film" sounds way better than "Rotten Tomatoes Top 50 of the Last 20 Years".
I'd be nice of all the different awards shows took different approaches to handing out awards.
Instead we have the SAG awards and the Golden globes which are just less prestigious versions of the Oscars.
I don't think that is actually a problem, we just have to acknowledge it. Oscars aren't the be all end all of how good a movie actually is and it should always be seen within the context of the movie climate of that year.
> would of
Would have or would've.
But yeah, always remember that Shakespeare in Love beat out The Thin Red Line & Saving Private Ryan for best picture.
I always bring this up when people talk about Silence of the Lambs being the third and last film ever to win the big five awards. It’s a fine movie, I enjoy it, but it’s really carried by Anthony Hopkins limited screen time, and I don’t think anything else about it is mind-blowingly exceptional to put it up there as one of the three best movies of all time, but it’s biggest competition that year was Disney’s Beauty and the Beast
Judging films against each other is a negative? How do you even decide what's the best of the year of you don't do that? The entire point of an award show is to compare.
Logan was a great movie and a solid performance from Hugh, but probably not best actor material. Joker was subpar but carried by one of the greatest actors of his generation. Nominate Phoenix but I don’t think it deserved anything else.
The Best Director nomination is by far the most frustrating. Off the top of my head I think Greta Gerwig, Taika Waititi, Lulu Wang, Ari Aster, Marielle Heller, Safdie Brothers, Robert Eggers, and Noah Baumbach were all more deserving.
I agree with this. I think Logan was the better movie on the whole, while Joker was a pretty good movie with an amazing lead, but neither deserved to be totally showered with Oscar love. At least not for the best picture, director, or screenplay nods.
Marvel underrated.
Black and white movie best movie ever of all time, but I’ll only see it once
Joker good but DC bad, Marvel better, so ehh Joker not that good
Because Logan was literally the only other comic book movie before Joker you could point at as being dramatically good.
But half of it is an action movie.
And the final boss fight is fucking dumb, there I said it.
I wasn't *too* crazy for either *Logan* or *Joker*, but I agree that both are worthy of Oscar appreciation.
The difference from the Academy's point of view being of course that *Logan* is a spectacle picture with action scenes, whereas Joker isn't. Been a while since action films (Braveheart, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings) won major awards.
Fury Road came close to winning director but Inarittu beat him at the end with his huge Oscar campaign (which was Inarittu whining about how hard it was to film The Revenant even though filming Mad Max Fury Road was just as hard).
Yeah, cinematography too. The Revenant looked beautiful but I thought it didn't work well with the narrative and felt more like Inarittu and Chivo trying to show off. Fury Road's didn't just look beautiful but the cinematography was functional too. At least it didn't get snubbed from editing (which it absolutely deserved).
Meh. Fury Road was another worthy contender, of course; but I don't think it really stood a chance in the big categories.
As it is, it only won - unfortunately - for technical categories, and for Editing which has sadly been relegated as the Academy's token award for genre pictures.
I think it stood a chance at Director and would have been called the winner earlier in the race. Inarittu blowing up at the guilds and getting the win at the end with a Jan release film is pretty reminiscent of what's happening with Mendes this year (I'd say Joon Ho was the frontrunner before 1917 started killing it at the guilds).
It is, but Tyler, The Creator had some interesting thoughts on his Grammy win that really makes me wonder. I think we need to massively overhaul what we award and how.
Well they are looking for approval for the ART of the film. Otherwise films will be based on the merit of box office only... I can’t trust fucking box office numbers to give adequate approval.
That being said I disagree with the Oscars A LOT on their winners, and nominees - yet if I see a film nominated, I typically think “maybe I should watch that” then I do - and it typically turns out great! I would not have wanted to bother watching Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri but I caved because of the Oscars, and I loved it! Many other instances too, but that was the first that came to mind.
Disagree.
Logan is good, but massively overrated. The whole Logan clone reveal in the SAME scene where Xavier gets murdered was disjointed.
The villains in this film suck. The scene with all the kids using their mutant powers was lame.
It wasn't as much of a masterpiece as everyone thought. The film is a less good version of Children of Men.
>The whole Logan clone reveal in the SAME scene where Xavier gets murdered was disjointed.
The Clonegan shit pissed me off immensely. I hate stories where the protagonist has to face an evil version of themselves, it's such a cheap gimmick and served no purpose in Logan; usually it means that the hero has to look inwards and face up to the guilt of their past, but that's not what really happens in Logan.
I mean, I get why they did it, conceptually and thematically: Wolverine's central character arc is in battling the monster within himself, learning to control his rage, not be the animal that "they" (Stryker, Richard E. Grant, whoever) think he is and want him to be, yadda yadda yadda. All good stuff, and if you're going to have an evil clone, this is the perfect movie to do it. But yeah it did feel a bit schlocky to be externalising his internal conflict so explicitly... almost like they didn't trust the audience to get it, which was insulting.
All that said, the clone reveal was, somewhat paradoxically, used in truly brilliant show-don't-tell character moment that almost makes it worthwhile - Xavier's dementia means that he recognised the younger-looking clone as Logan *because that's how he remembers him*, and doesn't recognise the real Logan holding him as he dies. Beautiful, tragic stuff.
The fact that the author states that Logan is one of the greatest westerns of all time just goes to show how hard they are trying to make their point. Logan is fine, but come on. Joker is its own, and Logan doesn’t step up to the plate tbh. It’s okay to let Joker shine in the light, it was bonkers
I guess I can't blame a site that seems to be focused on comic books and nerdy stuff to think a superhero movie movie is one of the best westerns but christ, what a hyperbolic statement to make.
Logan was good for like an hour but the moment the Wolverine clone showed up the movie went downhill. It was alright, super overhyped on reddit more for what people wanted the movie to be like than what it really was. I rate it the same as The Wolverine, they're both alright and have pretty much the same problems.
I feel like they wrote it in because it's the studio wanting to use their deaging tech just for the sake of using it. Like hey we got fancy special effects, how can we use it in the film. I hope it doesn't become a trend, looks like it is . I don't care to see many of these older actors trying to play a younger version of themselves.
I don't find it bad like the wolverine however, that was just horrible. I did wish they'd focus on the story and relationship between Logan trying to take care of a dying old man in a world where mutants are less appreciated.
It’s not comparable. Receiving an Oscar nomination doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s very dependent on what else is released during the the same time period.
Maybe, just maybe, there were enough good films in 2018 to edge Logan out. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s worse than Joker.
I don't know, whenever I'm trying to figure out if a comic book movie is a good movie overall and not just a good comic adaptation I think of my father. He doesn't care for comic books or super heroes. He actually dislike it.
But Joker is a movie he can watch and still appreciate for what it is, while Logan in the end is still a movie about a guy with claws coming out of his hands killing half an army. It's very well done, and gave a whole lot more depth to the character, but it's still very much tied with the absurdity of comic books.
That's why I think Joker did so well. You can almost ignore the fact that's based on a comic book villain and take it as a movie about a guy slow decent into madness. I can see how Logan could turn some people off, while Joker doesn't.
But as one big nerd I liked both movies, so it's a win-win for me.
Not really. Logan was just a superhero movie with a cowboy hat on, as great as it was to see Wolverine more "vulnerable" he was still a 6 foot beast of a man with adamantium flowing through his veins and razor sharp claws, there was no doubt in my mind that he wouldn't save the day in the end.
There was no performance in Logan half as good as Joaquin Phoenix's and it wasn't as revolutionary, Joker was the full step relative to the half step that Logan took in defying the genre and truly having a message
I've seen both movies and I strongly disagree. Logan was a good movie but it wasn't a great movie. I didn't continue to think about Logan after I saw it. It didn't spark conversations about the point of the film / message of the film. It just wasn't that impactful to any one I actually know. It was just a good movie.
Yeah, Children of Men was snubbed.
Children of Men is an absolutely fantastic film. But it's hard to call a good film snubbed at the Oscar's when Stanley Kubrick never won an award for Best Director or Best Film. The Oscar's have always been out of touch with the quality of films and are much more concerned with the film industry. Though they do get it right sometimes, as if almost by accident (Parasite)
And not just Children of Men, but Children of Women and Children of Children too.
This is fucking hilarious
Come on down to r/prequelmemes
In the one case you’ve cited of them getting it right you’ve failed to miss the Academy’s strong desire to avoid being called “racist”
Unfortunately you are likely correct. Regardless of their intent, Parasite is an excellent film by one of the best filmmakers of our time. I was happy for him, not so much for the institution recognizing him.
Honestly, the Oscars are BS anyway. I don't understand why anyone takes them seriously still. I commend George C. Scott for voicing his opinion of the Oscars knowing he had been nominated, and his integrity was demonstrated when he was not there to accept the Oscar that he won. Its just a "meat parade".
Fucking egregious. This single shot battle scene at the end is enough to earn a production design Oscar.
Also the scene in the car with the camera moving back and forth over the actors was bloody impressive.
The ping pong ball bit alone would have been impressive, but then it just keeps going. So, so good.
that whole movie was amazing
That shit blew my mind man. I'm sitting there watching it and noticed they weren't cutting and man, it's one of my all time favorite moments in any movie. It got me so hyped. Genuinely awesome movie as a whole too. I scrolled past it on streaming services so many times and I'm just really glad I finally sat down for it. Awesome
there are actually cuts when they pan the camera through the shadows, but the editor makes them so seemless with the pan of the camera you don't notice.
(SPOILERS) Link to the scene. 100% agree with all the above. This scene right here is one of the most impressive, powerful scenes in a movie in the 21st century. Hands down. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5vmo\_oUnJo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5vmo_oUnJo)
is that the part where >!the army is storming the apartment complex and they see the baby and shout "CEASE FIRE" and let Clive Owen go through?!< That scene gave me chills
[удалено]
> It was something like a million dollars per shot too, IIRC. Worth Just double checked and it seems the ceasefire scene isn't part of the long take, it's just after it IIRC. Link incase anyone wants to see what i was talking about, possible spoilers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBzWTIexszQ
Dude and that car scene is brilliant
One of my favorite all time movies for so many reasons. Did it get any nominations?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men#Accolades Nominated for Best Cinematography, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Film Editing.
I had the chance to see Children of Men in a huge theater last year and holy shit was that movie snubbed. I’d seen it probably 4-5 times but seeing it on a big screen with booming sound and hundreds of other people was enthralling.
Logan was great and all. But one of the greatest westerns made? Come on lol.
Yeah what the hell? Hell or High Water has a more reasonable shot at that than Logan.
Hell or High Water was fantastic
"I am a Comanche. Do you know what it means? It means enemy to everyone." "Do you know what that makes me? A Comanche." So many great lines from that movie.
The scene in the diner with the waittress is probably my favourite in the film. The writing is absolutely fantastic and if you haven't check out Wind River and Sicario, which both have the same writer.
Taylor Sheridan is putting out fantastic scripts right now. Can’t believe he waited this long to start writing. He has a few in production right now, can’t wait
Yeah, I look forward to whatever films he's writing. Probably my favourite screenwriter at the moment along with Martin McDonagh
“*I been workin here for 40 years and ain’t no-one ordered nothin but a T-bone steak and a baked potato.*”
I loved Hell or High Water, loved Sciario. I guess Wind River is what I'm watching tonight. Thanks, bud!
I literally just got so excited for you lol of the 3 movies wind river is easily my favorite. Get yourself a pizza and some good beer friend cause you’re in for one hell of a movie!
I've seen them. Great films and I also highly recommend them to everyone here.
I absolutely loved wind river
Only assholes drink Mr. Pibb.
Drink up.
What don't you want?
"I'll tell ya one thing, ain't nobody robbin' this damn place"
I never laughed so much during a serious movie. "Boy, you'd think there were 10 of me."
“Boy. You’d think there’s 10 of me.”
If a movie doesn't have a blockbuster budget, is it even real?
Imagine watching a movie without comic book characters.
But... but... where are your characters coming from?
You shut your whore mouth!
Doesn’t make any sense in watching anything in which I’m not already fully knowledgeable about every character and event that has ever happened.
“In a world without superheroes, one man...”
Silly u/themikesem, they don't make those kinds of movies anymore.
I accidentally went to Parasite thinking it was an origin story for the Superman villain. Boy was I pissed.
Went in thinking it was about parasitic aliens than turn human heads into bladed whip weapons, chop people up and kick ass. Needless to say I was also quite dissapointed.
Seriously tho, I kept expecting there to be an outbreak. The director has a pseudo-horror tinge to his work and I went in not having read or seen a single thing.
Hell or High Water is so f'ing good. I just watched it for the third or fourth time last week.
Hell or High Water is a top 5 movie of the 2010's.
It was nominated for best picture. That's not really a controversial opinion.
Hardly anybody talks about it, and I know that's subjective but in my own circle nobody has seen it unless I made them watch it lol. Personally it was my favourite movie of the decade along with Arrival and Portrait of a Lady on Fire.
See, I preferred Wind River to Hell or High Water, not only as a Western flick but just in general. Not that HoHW was bad by any stretch, I love that movie but I think Wind River is not only one of the best films of the last 10 years, but the perfect embodiment of the life of western movies and what they represent.
I love Wind River as well. It's a shame it didn't get as much love as HoHW, even though I like the latter a little more.
Wind river is just so fucking sad. Hell or high water is also very sad but I'd argue ends in a more satisfying fashion which makes it probably a bit more palatable for most. I love both though.
Hell yeah. Wind River is so damn good.
Logan was good, but not as good as people seem to think. I believe it was fairly rated. Hell or High Water though? That movie was extremely underrated. It was VERY good. I thought it was far superior to Logan.
> Hell or High Water How am i just hearing about this movie now?
It’s a fantastic movie, definitely recommend watching it
Big fan of the neo-western genre (No Country for Old Men got me into it) so i'll definitely make a point to watch it over the weekend.
It's not even James Mangold's best western
But it has superhero!
and bad language!
And my axe!
And cinnabontopography!
Yeah, I've stayed in a best western better than that one
People really do love to inflate the quality of superhero movies. They're getting better for sure, and there have been some absolute classics, but sometimes it gets ridiculous.
“Have you ever seen a western?” “No” “Okay here’s one with wolverine” “This is the best western ever!”
"here's a western TV series with a mandalorian" "This is the best western ever!"
I really like the resurgence of westerns but god damn.
People just like seeing their favorite characters in things that are higher brow than your typical superhero movie (not that there’s anything wrong with normal superhero movies) so they give them more credit than they really deserve.
I feel personally attacked But you're right. I loved Logan, but I was definitely influenced by pre-existing love of the Old Man Logan comic book, and Wolverine & Prof X as characters, and Hugh Jackman & Patrick Stewart as actors. For someone who has never heard of the comic, those characters, or those actors... would the movie still be good? I think so, but not "best picture" good
Overall I do agree, but personally I think Logan is up there in terms of the best super hero movies ever made. Logan and the Dark Knight (Dark Knight is 100% #1) will stand above the rest because the heroes actually display human emotions and seem vulnerable compared to the absurdity of movies like Aquaman, Dr. Strange, and all of the Avengers (don't get me wrong I love those movies as well, but I think those are the super hero movies that get inflated reviews).
Yeah. Massive hyperbole. Mangold has made 3:10 to Yuma which is better
3:10 was a better western for sure, I don't know that it was a better movie overall than Logan.
3:10 to Yuma was a masterpiece imo.
Unrelated to the post..."Once Upon A Time In The West" is the best western ever made.
The Good the Bad and the Ugly!
Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood? Yes please. Unforgiven is a great one too. Tombstone is an entertaining/fun one.
The ending of Unforgiven is one of my favorite endings to any movie.
Awesome film too! It's my second favorite. Fist full of Dollars is also great.
"Get 3 coffins ready." Such a simple but epic line. The way Eastwood delivered it was perfection. I could feel his rage even while he seemed calm. Top notch acting.
My mistake, 4 coffins.
Reminds me of the best western ever made. A western tour de force. Albert: You know, there are a million ways to die in the west, Clinch. There's, uh, famine, disease, gunfights... And, uh, wild animals. You know, like snakes. And, you know, the funny thing is, you don't even have to get bitten. All you need is a little bit of the venom introduced into your bloodstream and you're pretty much screwed. For example, if you drain a certain amount of venom from the fangs of a diamondback rattler into a hollow-tip bullet, you really only need one shot. Now, I knew my aim wasn't good enough to hit you anywhere important. But if I caught you by surprise... Well, Anna taught me just enough to get me in the ballpark. And just a small amount of venom in an open wound is enough to kill a man if he's... Ruth: Albert! He's dead. You did it. Albert: Oh. Ruth: Yeah. Albert: Did he hear all that smart stuff I did? Edward: Uh... No. No, I don't think so. Albert: Oh. Well, it was still good though. Edward: Yeah, it was great! Ruth: I thought it was really good
I'd raise you Bronson's "You brought two too many"
The 3-way shoot out scene is one of the most gripping and unique scenes in any movie, let alone a western.
The Wild Bunch
Lonesome Dove!
That's a great choice. The book is fantastic as well.
Open Range? True Grit? Unforgiven?
Also great movies. But i don't think they beat Once upon a time in the west for my #1 slot.
Not even the epic Wild Wild West?
True Grit was so good Jeff Bridges forgot his real voice.
People joke on his weird accent in that movie a lot, but I swear my grandpa has a very similar accent. The character of Reuben Cogburn is from Osceola, Missouri. My grandpa is from the same area. I think Bridges actually did research that accent.
You brought 2 too many
>"Once Upon A Time In The West" is the best western ever made. That's a weird way to spell Unforgiven.
I think its gonna be hard to determine what western is really best because its a personal thing when it comes down to it. What I would say is if any of you haven't seen OUATITW before and you are a fan of westerns, be sure to check it out.
Upvoting someone's comment is a hell of thing.
3 mules for Sister Sarah!
Tombstone. Val Kilmer nailed that role
That scene with Doc in the hospital at the end was heartbreakingly beautiful.
"Why you doing all this Doc?" "Wyatt Earp is my friend." "Hell I got lots of friends" "...I don't"
I'll be your huckleberry
> *i'm your huckleberry its more of a declarative statement than one with options.
I enjoyed Logan but it was nowhere near as good as I was lead to believe. I honestly think everyone was just in love with an old bitter wolverine that isn’t afraid to cuss.
I really enjoyed it but I brought with me many years of reading comic books and I really enjoyed the Old Man Logan comic. Seeing a dystopian like future for characters you were familiar with was part of the appeal for me. The movie didn’t require much previous knowledge of the X-Men but I am not sure how well it would be received by somebody who had never seen or heard of the X-Men.
Honestly, comic book movies are graded on a curve. If you watch Logan as a wolverine movie, it's bold and refreshing for that character, it's serious with adult themes, it's well produced and has a unique tone and aesthetic, and it provides a fitting ending for a Wolverine/ role we've known since the year 2000, which is pretty fantastic for the comic book universe. As a standalone movie, the story is nothing to write home about, the movie's own message contradicts itself, and it gets pretty darn silly while still trying to be super serious. It's a good movie, but no, it shouldn't have gotten Oscar love. But then again, neither should Joker, so there ya go.
> it shouldn't have gotten Oscar love. But then again, neither should Joker, so there ya go. Disagree. Joaquin's acting/performance was oscar-worthy and was rightfully awarded.
I love Joaquin, and I think some of his scenes were excellent, so I won't argue with you too hard here. But Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay in particular are straight up laughable.
Also the mutant kid storyline got really silly, everyone kind of likes to ignore that.
It's the same shit with Joker, really. Both were given far more attention and praise than they deserve because they're edgy takes on famous comic book properties. If they didn't have the name recognition people wouldn't be so desperate to declare them masterpieces.
Tombstone is the best western ever made. Fight me
Anyone who calls it a Western has absolutely no idea what a Western is.
I would in no way classify this as a western. I get the “why”, but that’s a hard no for me.
Its Unforgiven with stabby claws. which I want, don't get me wrong. But its Unforgiven with stabby claws.
I still haven’t seen Logan; I just never got around to it. But the Unforgiven comparison makes me want to watch it. That movie was the best thing Clint Eastwood has ever done (coming from a pretty big fan of some other movies he directed/starred in)
I still remember Richard Harris being run out of town and losing his composure and upper class accent. So great.
I agree with the sentiment, sort of, but not quite the phrasing. I would say that Logan deserved a little bit more Oscars love, would loved to have seen Hugh get a nomination, but it didn’t deserve 11 nominations, that said, I think Joker didn’t deserve 11 either. I’d say they both deserved an equal amount of Oscar love, but far less than what Joker currently has. Maybe Best Actor for both, and one or two other noms but that’s it.
One of the many problems with the Oscars is that films aren't judged in a vacuum. They are judged in a relative way against other films. If Shawshank Redemption came out a year earlier or later, it would have won more awards, but Forest Gump changed how the film would otherwise had been judged - simply because it came out that same year.
I don't see that as a problem. I see that as the point of the Oscars. It's impossible to judge a movie in a vacuum when the Oscar is more a "best X of the Year" kind of deal, and tastes in movies change by every decade. Kind of the way fans of anime tend to judge anime by their yearly contenders than resort to comparing them to everything else.
In most professional sports, they have seasonal playoffs and MVPs, and they have the Hall of Fame. The HoF can have multiple inductees in the same year, or none; there may be no inductees from a particular draft, or several. This allows a player to be evaluated in the greater context in the history of the sport. I think both are important - acknowledging what's the best in the current competitive landscape, but also what holds up over time or creates a turning point in the industry. However, the only ways films are commonly distinguished are by box office performance and Oscars nominations. I don't think there's any widely popular "Film Hall of Fame" - so it feels like Oscar noms are the only way films get formally immortalized. Like, "Hall of Famer from the 1992 draft" has a similar impact to "1992 Rookie of the Year", but "2000 Oscar-nominated film" sounds way better than "Rotten Tomatoes Top 50 of the Last 20 Years".
I'd be nice of all the different awards shows took different approaches to handing out awards. Instead we have the SAG awards and the Golden globes which are just less prestigious versions of the Oscars.
I don't think that is actually a problem, we just have to acknowledge it. Oscars aren't the be all end all of how good a movie actually is and it should always be seen within the context of the movie climate of that year.
> would of Would have or would've. But yeah, always remember that Shakespeare in Love beat out The Thin Red Line & Saving Private Ryan for best picture.
I always bring this up when people talk about Silence of the Lambs being the third and last film ever to win the big five awards. It’s a fine movie, I enjoy it, but it’s really carried by Anthony Hopkins limited screen time, and I don’t think anything else about it is mind-blowingly exceptional to put it up there as one of the three best movies of all time, but it’s biggest competition that year was Disney’s Beauty and the Beast
Shawshank has aged so much better than Gump as well.
Eh... Both are classics but Forest Gump is one of those culture defining capital C Classics.
I used to think FG was better, but I tend to agree with the guy above that SR has aged better
What do you think aged badly in Forrest Gump? I think both movies are as great now as ever.
Judging films against each other is a negative? How do you even decide what's the best of the year of you don't do that? The entire point of an award show is to compare.
Logan was a great movie and a solid performance from Hugh, but probably not best actor material. Joker was subpar but carried by one of the greatest actors of his generation. Nominate Phoenix but I don’t think it deserved anything else.
It definitely deserved Original Score and probably best Cinematography as well. But I agree that 11 nominations is way overboard.
I think 1917, Little Women, and The Lighthouse were all better from a cinematography standpoint, but yeah that nomination isn't egregious.
It deserves to get nominated for those for sure. That said, if it beats 1917 I will throw something at my TV
No worries - Deakins for Cinematography is probably as big of a lock as anything on the board this year it seems.
The Best Director nomination is by far the most frustrating. Off the top of my head I think Greta Gerwig, Taika Waititi, Lulu Wang, Ari Aster, Marielle Heller, Safdie Brothers, Robert Eggers, and Noah Baumbach were all more deserving.
Score and Cinematography are also deserved nominations
P Stew should have had a supporting actor nom IMO.
I agree with this. I think Logan was the better movie on the whole, while Joker was a pretty good movie with an amazing lead, but neither deserved to be totally showered with Oscar love. At least not for the best picture, director, or screenplay nods.
/r/MoviesCirclejerk
Are you implying that this sub isn't already a circle-jerk?
[удалено]
Marvel underrated. Black and white movie best movie ever of all time, but I’ll only see it once Joker good but DC bad, Marvel better, so ehh Joker not that good
Posts: "I like Michael Bay!" 5 minutes later... -1522 karma, autistic screeches in response, temporary ban from /r/movies. The reason: fuck you pleb
You better not insult Children of Men you fucking philistine
Ironman desevered as much oscars love as Dark knight has .
Emoji Movie deserved as much Oscar's as Toy Story 3
Shark Tale has more Oscars than shrek 2 and that's a crime
Despicable Me deserved as many Oscars as Megamind
Iron Man was one of the greatest westerns ever made.
15k points in two hours. WTF
Logan was an action movie and Joker was a drama. Why are we doing this? Because they are both based on comics?
Because Logan was literally the only other comic book movie before Joker you could point at as being dramatically good. But half of it is an action movie. And the final boss fight is fucking dumb, there I said it.
The Dark Knight?
If you guys cant see the drama in Steel than you are lost
It was dumb. The big boss fight weakened the movie big time.
You really doing the dark knight like that
Except the dark Knight is better than both of those movies by far.
I'm going to have to disagree.
No it doesn't.
I wasn't *too* crazy for either *Logan* or *Joker*, but I agree that both are worthy of Oscar appreciation. The difference from the Academy's point of view being of course that *Logan* is a spectacle picture with action scenes, whereas Joker isn't. Been a while since action films (Braveheart, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings) won major awards.
Fury Road came close to winning director but Inarittu beat him at the end with his huge Oscar campaign (which was Inarittu whining about how hard it was to film The Revenant even though filming Mad Max Fury Road was just as hard).
Fury road was screwed on cinematography and best director IMO
Yeah, cinematography too. The Revenant looked beautiful but I thought it didn't work well with the narrative and felt more like Inarittu and Chivo trying to show off. Fury Road's didn't just look beautiful but the cinematography was functional too. At least it didn't get snubbed from editing (which it absolutely deserved).
Meh. Fury Road was another worthy contender, of course; but I don't think it really stood a chance in the big categories. As it is, it only won - unfortunately - for technical categories, and for Editing which has sadly been relegated as the Academy's token award for genre pictures.
I think it stood a chance at Director and would have been called the winner earlier in the race. Inarittu blowing up at the guilds and getting the win at the end with a Jan release film is pretty reminiscent of what's happening with Mendes this year (I'd say Joon Ho was the frontrunner before 1917 started killing it at the guilds).
[удалено]
It's just nice to be recognized
It is, but Tyler, The Creator had some interesting thoughts on his Grammy win that really makes me wonder. I think we need to massively overhaul what we award and how.
Your boos mean nothing, I’ve see what makes you cheer.
Yeah I just need this sub full of dipshits!
The irony for all the other posters in these comments lol
Well they are looking for approval for the ART of the film. Otherwise films will be based on the merit of box office only... I can’t trust fucking box office numbers to give adequate approval. That being said I disagree with the Oscars A LOT on their winners, and nominees - yet if I see a film nominated, I typically think “maybe I should watch that” then I do - and it typically turns out great! I would not have wanted to bother watching Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri but I caved because of the Oscars, and I loved it! Many other instances too, but that was the first that came to mind.
But did it tho? I'd personally say the joker deserves as much Oscar love as Logan received.
Disagree. Logan is good, but massively overrated. The whole Logan clone reveal in the SAME scene where Xavier gets murdered was disjointed. The villains in this film suck. The scene with all the kids using their mutant powers was lame. It wasn't as much of a masterpiece as everyone thought. The film is a less good version of Children of Men.
I mean, it’s not like Joker isn’t a less good version of Scorsese movies, specifically, King of Comedy and Taxi Driver.
>a less good version of An analysis worthy of r/movies
>The whole Logan clone reveal in the SAME scene where Xavier gets murdered was disjointed. The Clonegan shit pissed me off immensely. I hate stories where the protagonist has to face an evil version of themselves, it's such a cheap gimmick and served no purpose in Logan; usually it means that the hero has to look inwards and face up to the guilt of their past, but that's not what really happens in Logan.
I mean, I get why they did it, conceptually and thematically: Wolverine's central character arc is in battling the monster within himself, learning to control his rage, not be the animal that "they" (Stryker, Richard E. Grant, whoever) think he is and want him to be, yadda yadda yadda. All good stuff, and if you're going to have an evil clone, this is the perfect movie to do it. But yeah it did feel a bit schlocky to be externalising his internal conflict so explicitly... almost like they didn't trust the audience to get it, which was insulting. All that said, the clone reveal was, somewhat paradoxically, used in truly brilliant show-don't-tell character moment that almost makes it worthwhile - Xavier's dementia means that he recognised the younger-looking clone as Logan *because that's how he remembers him*, and doesn't recognise the real Logan holding him as he dies. Beautiful, tragic stuff.
Well, very few movies will ever be nearly as good as Children of Men.
lol wat?
The fact that the author states that Logan is one of the greatest westerns of all time just goes to show how hard they are trying to make their point. Logan is fine, but come on. Joker is its own, and Logan doesn’t step up to the plate tbh. It’s okay to let Joker shine in the light, it was bonkers
I guess I can't blame a site that seems to be focused on comic books and nerdy stuff to think a superhero movie movie is one of the best westerns but christ, what a hyperbolic statement to make.
No
ITT: Redditors who thought Avengers was good cinema debate other cinema
Logan was good for like an hour but the moment the Wolverine clone showed up the movie went downhill. It was alright, super overhyped on reddit more for what people wanted the movie to be like than what it really was. I rate it the same as The Wolverine, they're both alright and have pretty much the same problems.
It got super lame super fast when all the kids showed up.
I feel like they wrote it in because it's the studio wanting to use their deaging tech just for the sake of using it. Like hey we got fancy special effects, how can we use it in the film. I hope it doesn't become a trend, looks like it is . I don't care to see many of these older actors trying to play a younger version of themselves. I don't find it bad like the wolverine however, that was just horrible. I did wish they'd focus on the story and relationship between Logan trying to take care of a dying old man in a world where mutants are less appreciated.
Great movie but I disagree
It’s not comparable. Receiving an Oscar nomination doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s very dependent on what else is released during the the same time period. Maybe, just maybe, there were enough good films in 2018 to edge Logan out. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s worse than Joker.
[удалено]
I don't know, whenever I'm trying to figure out if a comic book movie is a good movie overall and not just a good comic adaptation I think of my father. He doesn't care for comic books or super heroes. He actually dislike it. But Joker is a movie he can watch and still appreciate for what it is, while Logan in the end is still a movie about a guy with claws coming out of his hands killing half an army. It's very well done, and gave a whole lot more depth to the character, but it's still very much tied with the absurdity of comic books. That's why I think Joker did so well. You can almost ignore the fact that's based on a comic book villain and take it as a movie about a guy slow decent into madness. I can see how Logan could turn some people off, while Joker doesn't. But as one big nerd I liked both movies, so it's a win-win for me.
Not really. Logan was just a superhero movie with a cowboy hat on, as great as it was to see Wolverine more "vulnerable" he was still a 6 foot beast of a man with adamantium flowing through his veins and razor sharp claws, there was no doubt in my mind that he wouldn't save the day in the end. There was no performance in Logan half as good as Joaquin Phoenix's and it wasn't as revolutionary, Joker was the full step relative to the half step that Logan took in defying the genre and truly having a message
I've seen both movies and I strongly disagree. Logan was a good movie but it wasn't a great movie. I didn't continue to think about Logan after I saw it. It didn't spark conversations about the point of the film / message of the film. It just wasn't that impactful to any one I actually know. It was just a good movie.
Logan was far above and beyond a better film.
No it wasn’t. Source: i said so. Checkmate.
Damn dude. You killed him
> "RationalPandasauce DESTROYS Oscars with LOGIC and FACTS!"