Tit Whistle watches all the Best Picture winners

Cledus · **Posted:** Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:37 pm

I'd love it if he asked me that question. :soppy:

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

Driving Miss Daisy - They call this movie Driving Miss Daisy because Driving That Old Crotchety Jew Bitch wouldn't fit on the marquee. But seriously, I saw this movie back during its release, and I feel the same about it after my recent second viewing as I did after the first: It's a movie. Yep. Sure thing, it is. That's the best description I can come with for it. It's a movie. Up there on the screen. For you to watch. It's a pretty good movie, too. It neither offends your sensibilities nor gives you much to think about. If you've got 98 minutes to kill, here's a movie for you to watch. BAM! For 98 minutes you've been occupied and now you can move onto something else. Movies are good like that.

Did it deserve to win?: Well, they were honoring movies, and this is certainly one of them. But there were better movies in 1989, some actually worth revisiting. It was a big year as indies made a splash and we saw the debuts of Soderbergh and Van Sant. Spike Lee made a big, polarizing statement. Oliver Stone made his last great film before going apeshit in the editing room. There was even some big studio product that was better than the usual crap. 1989 was a damn fine year for movies. Too bad they honored a plain ordinary one.

:rimshot:

(out of 5)

Up next: Dances with Wolves

or somesuch · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:54 am

Couldn't agree more. It was ok.

Sweet Greggo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:57 am

Morgan Freeman should have won the Oscar for his "make water" speech alone. So moving.

cap · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:58 am

Sweet Greggo wrote:

Morgan Freeman should have won the Oscar for his "make water" speech alone. So moving.

his 'make it rain' speech was better.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

Sweet Greggo wrote:

Morgan Freeman should have won the Oscar for his "make water" speech alone. So moving.

I always thought he was great, but 2nd viewing showed he had a little too much happy tap-dancing Negro in him.

cap · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:15 pm

Sweet Greggo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:12 pm

Tit Whistle wrote:

Sweet Greggo wrote:

Morgan Freeman should have won the Oscar for his "make water" speech alone. So moving.

I always thought he was great, but 2nd viewing showed he had a little too much happy tap-dancing Negro in him.

negra

Stu · **Joined:** Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:36 pm **Posts:** 3832

Tit Whistle wrote:

Going My Way - From now on, 1944 is going to be known as the Year of the Dumbass. They're dumbasses because they thought this pointless movie deserved not only the highest attendance in the theaters that year, but also 7 fucking Oscars! Seven is an impressive haul in any year, but back then it was huge. Bing Crosby won Best Actor. Let me tell you, he had a great singing voice, but acting-wise he was bland as a fucking rice cake. He's Father O'Malley, the new priest at St. Dominic's, a poor church in the shittiest shithole section of NYC. There's no problem he can't fix with a tune. Are you a small town girl who wants to be a big-time singer in the city? Sing like Father O'Malley. Hey look! Your shit's fixed! Are you one of two dozen street kids with no future? Join the choir and sing like Father O'Malley. Hey look! Your shit's fixed! Church behind on mortgage payments? Father O'Malley will write a song and use the proceeds to pay it off. Hey look! Your shit's fixed! Thanks, Father O'Malley! Thanks for slightly nudging us in the right direction with a breezy tune, you great underhanded motivator. Oh, and thanks for not hammering us over the head with that Bible shit. I notice you don't carry one, or ever quote one, for that matter. And when troubles arise, why bother us with a parable or an uplifting verse when a quick pop tune will do? Ya know, if it weren't for the collar, I'd probably think you're a shoe salesman. You're the most secular priest ever, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

But let's get back to the Year of the Dumbass thing. Barry Fitzgerald plays the antiquated Father Fitzgibbon. He was nominated for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. I'll repeat that: He was nominated for Best Actor AND Best Supporting Actor...FOR THE SAME FUCKING ROLE! It seems by 1944, all the smart people had died in the war. Or maybe they didn't care. I'm leaning toward the latter since it's the only thing that makes sense about the heap of praise this movie received. He won Supporting Actor, btw. He didn't deserve it. As an old Irish priest who doesn't understand the young people of 1944 (really, who did?), I couldn't comprehend a single word that came out of his mouth. All I ever heard was "grumblegrumblecrotchetyballscratch". Learn to carry a tune, old man. He's also about 109 in this movie. It closes with him reuniting with his mother. She's 148. Would've brought a tear to my eye if it weren't so damned ridiculous. Father O'Malley seemed to agree as he slipped out quietly once the mother and child reunion was only a motion away. His work here is finished and he's headed to another town. It's Christmas Eve, it's snowing, and 1944 is almost over. Good fucking riddance. Dumbasses.

Did it deserve to win?: Did you ever read the fucking review? The answer is no. N-N-N-N-N-NOOOOOO. Here's some lyrics I wrote to the tune of "Swinging on a Star": No-no-no no no no-no-no/No-no-no no no no-no-no. Catchy, isn't it?

:fu:

(out of 5)

This movie came on last night. I watched it again to see if I still like Barry Fitzgerald. Still do.

I can see why this movie got so much hype. The movie came out in 1944 right at the heart of the Allied push into France. You have a character quit his job and join the war effort. A disapproving dad suddenly realizes he may lose his son. You have Bing singing Silent Night. I will agree that it's not the best flick in the world, but I can understand why it won. It hit all of the soft spots in people's hearts.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

Still my best review.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

Dances with Wolves - I recall liking this movie when it first came out. I remember liking it a lot. It was a 3-hour western epic that was fun and interesting, and most importantly, flew by, time-wise. I never bothered with it again until now. And now I kinda wonder what we were all thinking when we thought this was a great film. It's a good film, to be sure, but there was no reason for everyone to go crazy over it. It's just Avatar with horses and no asplosions. And Kevin Costner sucks. He was great in Bull Durham, but I've never his appeal in anything else. The movie's biggest problem is it drags. Maybe that comes with already knowing the plot and waiting for certain things to happen, but I almost fell asleep at one point and was feeling rather impatient a few other times, especially near the end. And the only time I got emotionally invested is when those cracker tards killed Two Socks. But let's all agree that killing an animal is the easiest way to pull at an audience's heartstrings, unless it's an asshole animal like a shrew or an uncharismatic one like a woodchuck. I'll go ahead and use the cliche that this movie hasn't aged well. If you've seen it once and have good memories of it, stick with those. There's no need to revisit it unless you're doing something dumb like watching all the Best Picture winners.

Did it deserve to win?: No. Goodfellas, fer Chrissakes.

:deadhorse:

(out of 5)

Up next: The Silence of the Lambs

or somesuch · **Posted:** Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:43 pm

You know it's a weak year for movies when Kindergarten Cop is in the top 5.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

You know it's a weak year when Ghost is one of your 5 nominees.

bigboy · **Joined:** Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:57 pm **Posts:** 7486

And The Godfather 3.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

The Silence of the Lambs - I doubt I can say anything profound about a movie that everyone's seen a hundred times. All I can say is the shit holds up. On the 100th viewing, Lecter is still creepy and his talks with Clarice are still awesome. It's fun to watch the two of them as he plays games with her and she shows she can play at his level. He may be a creep but he shows respect when it's earned. I wonder what the people who long ago gave this award to the likes of Cavalcade and Mrs. Miniver would think if they learned that one day the same award would be given to a movie in which a dude throws a wad of jizz in a chick's face and another dude tucks his wiener between his legs and dances around the room? I think there'd be lots of fainting and gnashing of breasts. But the coolest thing is that this movie did win the big prize since normally the Academy shies away from tougher fare like this in favor of something more comforting (see the two previous years.) I remember how much it shocked and creeped me out when I first saw it in the theater. It still has the same effect today.

Did it deserve to win?: Myep. Unless you liked The Prince of Tides more, which makes you a fag.

:twisted:

(out of 5)

Up next: Unforgiven

bigboy · **Joined:** Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:57 pm **Posts:** 7486

The scene where Lecter escapes and the dude is hanging from the ceiling still creeps me the fuck out.

cap · **Posted:** Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:40 pm

The scene where the dude hides his penis, makes me horny

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

cap wrote:

The scene where the dude hides his penis, makes me horny

This might belong in Observations, but if you do that in front of your wife, it freaks her out.

And I bet at least half of you sickos already knew this.

Stu · **Joined:** Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:36 pm **Posts:** 3832

bigboy wrote:

The scene where Lecter escapes and the dude is hanging from the ceiling still creeps me the fuck out.

Diello · **Joined:** Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:27 pm **Posts:** 2878

Silence of the Lambs always fell into the same category as the Godfather to me. I think they're both great, but maybe not worthy of the top 10 of all time type praise that is heaped on them. I know it's not a popular opinion. It's silly on my part to knock a movie that is nothing more than a really great story, but I feel like the all time greats/top 10 types have something a little more. Maybe it's a social statement or somesuch. It pulled the big sweep, and I honestly can't begrudge any of the awards.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's a great fucking movie and that is all.

Ichabod · **Joined:** Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:08 pm **Posts:** 1901

Tit Whistle wrote:

cap wrote:

The scene where the dude hides his penis, makes me horny

This might belong in Observations, but if you do that in front of your wife, it freaks her out.

And I bet at least half of you sickos already knew this.

Sweet Greggo · **Posted:** Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:49 pm

Ichabod wrote:

Tit Whistle wrote:

cap wrote:

The scene where the dude hides his penis, makes me horny

This might belong in Observations, but if you do that in front of your wife, it freaks her out.

And I bet at least half of you sickos already knew this.

Stu · **Joined:** Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:36 pm **Posts:** 3832

Tit Whistle wrote:

Ben-Hur - Okay, the Academy, you're starting to piss me off now. I know you like long epic movies, but honoring one that clocks in at almost four hours is just obnoxious. Yes, I know, they could've trimmed an hour just by eliminating the pauses in the dialogue, but you could've made an example out of them. I highly doubt the Jews and Romans were this fuckin' ponderous when they spoke. And with all the machismo flying around, you'd think they were Mexicans. So anyway, this is the story of a Jew who's rich, then a slave, then an honored hero, then a vengeful bastard. In the end, he comes to love the back of Jesus's head. Nothing particularly wrong with the story, but like I said, it's waaaaaay too long. And boring. Lots of conversations here with pausing between each line. They like to stare a lot, too. At each other, at the stars, at a chair, it's all very meaningful. Charlton Heston acts like a tough guy throughout, but often it came off more as smarm. And I know smarm. I'm the Internet's Tit Whistle. The movie isn't completely worthless. The chariot race is still top notch, and the naval battle is exciting even if it looks like it was filmed in some dude's bathtub. Hugh Griffith had a fun part as the Arab, but it's weird that he's essentially in blackface. Yes, Best Supporting Actor was given to a white guy who applied shoe polish to his face to make himself look ethnic. But it's okay. Years later, they gave the same award to Cuba Gooding Jr to make up for it.

Twist: This is only the 2nd movie so far that I've already seen. Technically, I watched it Freshman year in high school when they showed it during Latin class. It was a VHS copy of the movie recorded off TV. Aside from the chariot race and the galley scene, I remember none of it.

Did it deserve to win?: No. The scope was impressive, but this thing dragged on and on. They should've given it to North by Northwest or Some Like It Hot.

:hrn:

(out of 5)

This comes on tonight on TCM. 222 minutes. Some may want to watch it and enjoy Tit's review. It doesn't get an official Stu recommendation because it's a long beating of a movie.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

Beating doesn't begin to describe it.

or somesuch · **Posted:** Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:05 am

Stu wrote:

222 minutes.

Out

or somesuch · **Posted:** Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:19 am

Stu wrote:

Tit Whistle wrote:

All Quiet on the Western Front - It's Germany, the Frenchies are being French, and war is at hand. A bunch of young guys get a big rah-rah go Germans speech and enlist to fight. Typical war story in that there's plenty of war-is-hellnicity, but this one also examines the effect of propaganda and patriotism on the masses and how everyone gets gung ho for war, while it destroys the ones who have to fight. Not exactly a pre-cursor for all those John Wayne movies. The battle scenes are fantastic. While not as visceral as what we get today, they're still pretty horrifying. The shot of the French soldier's hands on the barbed wire fence after getting hit by a mortar must have been incredibly shocking at the time. There's also something cool about watching buildings they actually had to blow up to get their effect right. I still have a problem with the style of acting from the era, and it's distracting to hear a bunch of German soldiers speaking with a wide variety of American accents. But this is an impressive war film that remains relevant today, especially in its portrayal of the folks back home who think the war is great even though they have no clue what the troops are going through on the front.

Did it deserve to win?: Yes. Nothing else from 1930 stands out to me. It also has a message, real ideas, and great direction. It's more than just the grand entertainment they awarded in the early years.

:bolt:

(out of 5)

This comes on TCM tonight for those that want to see one of the first Oscar winners.

I mistakenly thought this was in Stu's recommendation thread and that Tit had given it 5 :bolt:

when I DVRed it. I'm sure it was great for 1930, and I agree with TW's review completely. How come the German guys spoke English, but the French chicks didn't? The scene(s) in the foxhole with the dead dude were kind of creepy and I think I saw him blink twice. When they signed up for the war and broke out into song, my wife looked over and started laughing at me. I did dig the actual buildings blowing up and the movie did have a real message. Best movie from 1930 that I've ever seen - also the worst.

Stu · **Joined:** Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:36 pm **Posts:** 3832

or somesuch wrote:

Stu wrote:

Tit Whistle wrote:

All Quiet on the Western Front - It's Germany, the Frenchies are being French, and war is at hand. A bunch of young guys get a big rah-rah go Germans speech and enlist to fight. Typical war story in that there's plenty of war-is-hellnicity, but this one also examines the effect of propaganda and patriotism on the masses and how everyone gets gung ho for war, while it destroys the ones who have to fight. Not exactly a pre-cursor for all those John Wayne movies. The battle scenes are fantastic. While not as visceral as what we get today, they're still pretty horrifying. The shot of the French soldier's hands on the barbed wire fence after getting hit by a mortar must have been incredibly shocking at the time. There's also something cool about watching buildings they actually had to blow up to get their effect right. I still have a problem with the style of acting from the era, and it's distracting to hear a bunch of German soldiers speaking with a wide variety of American accents. But this is an impressive war film that remains relevant today, especially in its portrayal of the folks back home who think the war is great even though they have no clue what the troops are going through on the front.

Did it deserve to win?: Yes. Nothing else from 1930 stands out to me. It also has a message, real ideas, and great direction. It's more than just the grand entertainment they awarded in the early years.

:bolt:

(out of 5)

This comes on TCM tonight for those that want to see one of the first Oscar winners.

I mistakenly thought this was in Stu's recommendation thread and that Tit had given it 5 :bolt:

when I DVRed it. I'm sure it was great for 1930, and I agree with TW's review completely. How come the German guys spoke English, but the French chicks didn't? The scene(s) in the foxhole with the dead dude were kind of creepy and I think I saw him blink twice. When they signed up for the war and broke out into song, my wife looked over and started laughing at me. I did dig the actual buildings blowing up and the movie did have a real message. Best movie from 1930 that I've ever seen - also the worst.

I give the guy credit for not blinking too much with all that dust around. They kept that scene up a long time.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

I look forward to somey's review of The Broadway Melody of 1929.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

Unforgiven - Here's another one of my all-time top 10 favorite movies. It's a movie I initially resisted. I'm not a big fan of Westerns. There's something about all the sun and dirt and sweaty dudes squinting that gives me a headache. I wasn't much of a Clint Eastwood fan either. I've only seen one Dirty Harry movie (The Dead Pool) and none of the ones he did with the ape. It was a perfect storm of things I didn't give a shit about, so I didn't see the movie until about 7-8 years after its release. I finally relented when a dude I worked with--whose opinion I trusted--assured me it was worth my time. Boy howdy, was he right about that. There are no heroes in this movie. Everyone's a bad guy, even if they think they're doing the right thing. There's a plot about a reward for killing a couple of dudes who cut up a whore and got off easy, but it's really about the whole myth of the west, how the stories get distorted, and what is real. It's got great tension and heartbreaking moments, and the moment at the end when Clint heads into the saloon full of guys getting ready to hunt his ass down is one of the greatest "Oh shit" moments I've ever seen. That all stems from everything that came before it, as Will Munny was been completely broken down from his reformed ways by the events leading up to his entrance to the saloon. It is great, great film making. From start to finish, this is a complex masterwork with shades of gray in every character. I'm glad I caught up with it, and despite my protestations on Oscar night in 1993, I'm glad it won.

Did it deserve to win?: Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

:gun2:

(out of 5)

Up next: Schindler's List

Stu · **Joined:** Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:36 pm **Posts:** 3832

Great movie.

Sweet Greggo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:53 pm

Nice summation, red.

Diello · **Joined:** Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:27 pm **Posts:** 2878

Tit Whistle wrote:

Did it deserve to win?: Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

I love you.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

Diello wrote:

Tit Whistle wrote:

Did it deserve to win?: Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

I love you.

or somesuch · **Posted:** Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:44 pm

I bet you came up with that about 12 pages ago and have been itching to get to Unforgiven.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

I thought of it right before I popped the movie in last night. But yeah, that was the only way to do it.

fruitdog · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:09 am **Posts:** 6504

I think it's a good movie and I enjoyed it but I just don't get that it's a best picture winner. Was it a weak year?

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

fruitdog wrote:

I think it's a good movie and I enjoyed it but I just don't get that it's a best picture winner. Was it a weak year?

It kinda was. The other competition was The Crying Game, Scent of a Woman, A Few Good Men, and Howard's End, all of which are kinda overrated (except Howard's End which I've never seen.) The critic's choice was The Player, which I've never fully understood. Most of the popular movies that year were crap like Home Alone and The Bodyguard. There were others like Glengarry Glen Ross and Reservoir Dogs but they never touch that kinda stuff. So yeah, it was a weak year.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

Schindler's List - This movie is often referred to as the best movie you never want to see twice. This was my fourth viewing. I saw it when it first came out in December '93. Then I went to see it again the following spring on Easter Sunday. Caught it again when they aired it damn near unedited on national TV. I think it's a great film, however, repeated viewings have somewhat lessened its impact. The horror of seeing all those Jews mercilessly killed has become numbingly matter-of-fact. It's still terrible, but not as terrible as the first time you sat through it. I didn't feel the emotional connection to anything here until the very end when the black-and-white changes to color and the surviving Schindler Jews appear on screen. Suddenly it all hit home that this was real and these were real people who went through this. Of course, I knew this, but it wasn't until that moment that I felt something on this viewing. Again, it's a great film, it still lacks a little something. I mentioned the great "Oh Shit" moment in my review of Unforgiven. We should have the same thing here when the women's train is accidentally routed to Auschwitz instead of a safe place in Czechoslovakia. The women are rounded up, given haircuts, stripped down, and corralled into the showers where they, um, take showers. The terror buildup is fantastic, but the release feels so false, Spielberg couldn't have screwed it up more if he had them rescued by a happy, friendly, magical alien. The great "Oh Shit" moment is ruined when we realize, "Well, it is still just a movie after all." I won't let that detract from it, however. This movie is important, and it is masterful. It's not the film's fault that its images aren't as shocking almost 20 years later. It was plenty stirring back in the day, and that's good enough.

Did it deserve to win?: Yeah. For me it was this or the equally depressing, but it a different way, Short Cuts. Schindler is more important so it gets it by a hair.

:alien:

(out of 5)

Up next: Forrest Gump

Sweet Greggo · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:09 pm

Tit Whistle wrote:

Schindler's List - This movie is often referred to as the best movie you never want to see twice. This was my fourth viewing. I saw it when it first came out in December '93. Then I went to see it again the following spring on Easter Sunday. Caught it again when they aired it damn near unedited on national TV. I think it's a great film, however, repeated viewings have somewhat lessened its impact. The horror of seeing all those Jews mercilessly killed has become numbingly matter-of-fact. It's still terrible, but not as terrible as the first time you sat through it. I didn't feel the emotional connection to anything here until the very end when the black-and-white changes to color and the surviving Schindler Jews appear on screen. Suddenly it all hit home that this was real and these were real people who went through this. Of course, I knew this, but it wasn't until that moment that I felt something on this viewing. Again, it's a great film, it still lacks a little something. I mentioned the great "Oh Shit" moment in my review of Unforgiven. We should have the same thing here when the women's train is accidentally routed to Auschwitz instead of a safe place in Czechoslovakia. The women are rounded up, given haircuts, stripped down, and corralled into the showers where they, um, take showers. The terror buildup is fantastic, but the release feels so false, Spielberg couldn't have screwed it up more if he had them rescued by a happy, friendly, magical alien. The great "Oh Shit" moment is ruined when we realize, "Well, it is still just a movie after all." I won't let that detract from it, however. This movie is important, and it is masterful. It's not the film's fault that its images aren't as shocking almost 20 years later. It was plenty stirring back in the day, and that's good enough.

Did it deserve to win?: Yeah. For me it was this or the equally depressing, but it a different way, Short Cuts. Schindler is more important so it gets it by a hair.

:alien:

(out of 5)

Up next: Forrest Gump

You almost chose Johnny 5 over this? What kind of movie reviewer are you?

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

Someone text bigboy. We need that cow in sidecar pic.

or somesuch · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:16 pm

I'm good with '93, but I have a feeling we're going to disagree on '94.

Tit Whistle · **Joined:** Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:50 am **Posts:** 15287

'94 will get a fair shake.

Tit Whistle watches all the Best Picture winners

Who is online