This thread is finally taking off.

Only took 17 pages.

I've been cheering for it the whole time, I just didn't post about it.

Can one of you let me know what just happened then? I'm having a hell of a time following cap's posts and who he's directing them towards.

I was assuming you wouild understand. We don't speak amigo.

I've been out of the amigos for a while.

kids do that

Well it is call Good Fellas.

Gladiator - I've said before I never understood the love for this movie. I still don't, but I found I enjoyed it and appreciated it a little more on this viewing. That still isn't saying much, but it's progress. I think Ridley Scott is a master and he does his best here, but he's stuck with a generic story and some weak dialogue. He makes the most of his action sequences but the talky parts grind the movie to a halt. The weakest link is Joaquin Phoenix who plays the antagonist as a little wuss. The hero is Russell Crowe, who's one of the last actors we have who can not only kick your ass but is also smarter than you. You match him up against a little titty baby and it's no contest. Add some crappy visual effects and the love for this movie becomes a real headscratcher. Crowe bookended this performance with two greater performances, yet this was the one he received the Oscar for. I could slam this movie all day, but as I said, I enjoyed it a little more this time. I found the pacing to be a bit better this time, though that could be because I had to divide this viewing into three separate siddowns due to time constraints. I also liked Connie Nielsen here. She's easy on the eyes and actually does some work here that's not completely ridiculous. She doesn't show her boobies, however, ending our streak of boobie movies at 5. And that's such a missed opportunity. This is ancient Rome fer cryin' out loud. It's the seediest era in human history outside of present-say Sweden, and all we get is some talk from our sissy villain about how he wants to fuck his sister. That's about par for the imagination on display here. It's a standard revenge story that does nothing new and doesn't show us anything we haven't seen before.

Did it deserve to win?: Nope. Traffic was probably the best movie of the year, and it won 4 awards, so it was probably a pretty close race. I guess my favorite was O Brother Where Art Thou? Memento and Wonder Boys also came out in what was a pretty weak year.

(out of 5)

Up next: A Beautiful Mind

O Brother is a stop down each time it's on.

Gladiator was mainly hailed because it used cgi to rebuild Rome. I remember at the time really digging the aerial shots and thinking it was pretty cool that we could really get a feel now for ancient cities and felt pretty excited for the future of cgi.

Crowe got a pity oscar because he got robbed the year before.

Still love Gladiator.

Gladiator is a pretty decent movie at best. Watch Spartacus instead.

The weakest link is Joaquin Phoenix

Agree. He almost ruins the movie.

Both Soderbergh movies nominated that year were light years better than Gladiator and there was probably a little canceling out in play. If Del Toro had been nominated in the lead role category (and he was arguably one of the leads in an ensemble cast), he would have mopped the floor with Crowe.

A Beautiful Mind - I don't care what anyone says. This movie ain't that great. It's not terrible and it's certainly well-made, but I just have trouble giving a shit about it. It's gets off to a really good start as it introduces this wacko math genius and then gets into some spy shit, and I'm thinking this could be a cool paranoid thriller. Instead, it takes a 90 degree turn and becomes a love-conquers-all bullshit love story and I lose all interest. I like the performances, and think Crowe deserved his Oscar here instead of for Gladiator. Jennifer Connally deserved hers too (alas, no boobies) and they each rise above a generic story with no surprises. And let's talk surprises while we're on the topic. The emotional apex of the movie is clearly meant to be the ceremony where all the faculty present him with their pens and congratulate him on his breakthrough. You're supposed to well-up at that moment, but I couldn't because I saw it coming about 90 minutes away when they made a point to show another guy getting the treatment. Gee, you think we'll see this scene played out again focusing on the main character? Ever seen a movie, Jimmy? Think back a few years earlier to a little movie called Dead Poets Society. They had a similar big moment at the end when the kids stand on their desks and salute their departing teacher with a reference to a Walt Whitman poem. The reference comes in a small moment much earlier in the film, and if you missed it, you might not receive the full effect of the ending. But it's there, and it's part of the full construct of the story. With ABM, you're whacked over the head with a rolled-up newspaper and told, "Look! This is IMPORTANT!! Pay attention, ya dick!" It's as subtle as a fart in church, and it shows how pedestrian a director Ron Howard is. Oh yeah, I'm going there. I guess if he was destined to receive a Best Director Oscar at some point, it's best he got it for this movie since he actually tried a few tricks to make things interesting, though those are few and far between. This guy's two previous films were The Grinch and EDTV. He belonged in some sort of movie jail after unleashing those on us, but no, here's an Oscar instead for making a movie that looks like it's eaten up with pedigree. But this movie is bland and formulaic and built-to-please, and it doesn't have anything new to give to us. Even the "those people aren't real" twist had been done previously and felt familiar. There was always some noise made about the liberties they took with John Nash's real life (anti-semitism, homo feelings, etc.) but those things are irrelevant. The only unusual thing I find about it is that they used his life to tell a love-conquers-all story when his wife divorced him in 1963. If you want to tell that kind of story, use someone's life who actually illustrates it. They should've stuck with the spy shit instead.

Did it deserve to win?: Nope. But was a post-9/11 world and we needed something safe and warm to snuggle up to. I don't know what else should've won, just not this. And I'd like to hammer on Ron Howard a little more because it makes me feel manly. He beat Ridley Scott, Robert Altman, Peter Jackson, David Lynch, and the un-nommed Baz Lurhmann for Best Director, and you cannot convince me he did a better job directing his film over any of these guys and their films. Don't even try because I won't accept your explanations.

(out of 5)

Up next: Chicago

While I don't hate A Beautiful Mind, LOTR should have won.

Give me The Royal Tenenbaums.

on both.

I'd go with Ghost World. Y Tu Mama Tambien is a close second.

while there may not be a lot of oscar class movies that year there were a lot that I liked
LOTR
Ocean's 11
Black Hawk Down
Training Day
Royal Tenenbaums
Blow
Enemy at the Gates
Spy Game
Ghost World
Monster's Ball
and that's probably not even half the movies made in 2001 that I didn't hate.

I bet there's 25 okay to good movies that year that I've seen.

There were some really good foreign movies...Amelie, The Devil's Backbone.

Just watched the big heist part of Ocean's 11 about a week ago. That movie is still a shitload of fun.

You are probably right about post 9/11 helping this. Probably the same thing as Going My Way. Ed Harris does look a little like Barry Fitzgerald too.

LOTR and Black Hawk Down were greatness. Both were better than Beautiful Mind.

I'm kinda surprised by the meh feelings expressed so far. I thought I was gonna get beated up over this one.

She didn't show her knockers. Nuff said.

I remember there being more forum debate years ago but I guess now I just don't care enough for that movie to disagree. I'd defend Gladiator more than I would this.

to all of this.

I think it was hugo who didn't like the fact that they didn't talk about his "homo feelings".

What has he been up to?

Probably a checkout clerk at Albertson's right about now.

Ron Howard is on par with Robert Zemekis.

Here are some directors who won Oscars:
Ron Howard
Robert Zemekis
Mel Gibson
Kevin Costner

Here are directors who have never won an Oscar:
Wes Anderson
Christopher Nolan
Stanley Kubrick
Robert Altman
Ridley Scott
Alfred Hitchcock
Peter Weir

Humping one or working as one?

Working as one, and humping the bag boy.

Chicago - I don't care if it's gay to like musicals. This movie is a whole lot of fun. It opens with a burst of energy and doesn't let up until the credits are rollings. It's smart enough to know that its greatest asset is its songs, so it lets them tell the story and keeps the dialog to a minimum. It pulls a nifty little trick of establishing that all the singing and dancing is in the head of the lead, Roxie Hart, and thus eliminates the douchebag complaints from jaded 21st century audiences who hate when people unrealistically burst into song in movies. Roxie's in jail for killing McNulty, who basically did nothing more than act like McNulty to the wrong chick. There's lots of satire about celebrity as murderesses fight over headlines and a big-time lawyer works to get them acquitted, as long as he's paid first. The plot really isn't so important as the movie is all about the setpieces and keeping the energy up, but it's nice that they try to added some depth to the story. Not everything is perfect, however. It does have to deal with that plot, which slows down when the songs can't carry it, and the casting is also a bit weak. They lost something by going with the big marquee names instead of professionals who know how to deliver the material. Catherine Zeta-Jones comes off great since she obviously has some experience and can pull off the moves without weird edits to disguise any amateurishness. She shows she belongs here early on during the Cell Block Tango. She's up there with a bunch of pros and takes charge to become the focus of an ensemble piece. The best comparison for her comes at the end when she shares the stage with Renee Zellweger, who's in over her head. They sing and dance and be sexy, but watch them closely. Renee Z is acting sexy; CZJ IS sexy. She doesn't need to pretend. She's hot and we all want to fuck her and she knows it. Renee pouts her lips and tries all sorts of tricks that a woman desperate to find a man might try. CZJ plays it natural, and you pop a big natural boner just watching her. She totally deserved her Oscar. Another miscast is Richard Gere. He's perfect to play a hot-shot lawyer, but his singing is weak and his tap dance during the trial is the one time the movie misses its mark. Some of that may be direction, but the scene doesn't work the way I imagine it worked on the stage. With some better casting, they could've knocked it out of the park. Instead we get a really good movie that while not perfect, is still a hell of a lot of fun.

Did it deserve to win?: It's a tough call because when a movie is "fun" it's usually dismissed for not being important. There were some really good movies that year that have the important tag like The Pianist and City of God. Adaptation is one of the craziest and most clever movies I've ever seen. City of God was probably the best, but let's also not forget Signs.

(out of 5)

Up next: Lord of the Rings 3

Is this the first time you've said you like a musical?

No. I liked Sound of Music, West Side Story, and Oliver. But non-bandwagon thread readers would already know that.

Just proving that I read the whole thing.

I caught it too.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - I guess I should've watched the entire trilogy since that's what they were rewarding. However, I don't have 10-11 hours to devote to a single year so I only watched the film that received the accolades. I don't know which of the three is best. They're all about equal: pretty to look at, slow at times, kickass at others. Taken as a trilogy, it's a terrific achievement. Individually, I'm not sure any of them qualify as masterpieces. The problem is in including damn near everything from the books. This series set a bad precedent by catering completely to the fanboys. No longer can we have a movie from a popular series that cuts through the crap and tells a nice, neat story within two hours. Now, there has to be a series of films and you best not leave anything out if you know what's good for ya, Chester. You're gonna have the whole Internet on yer ass! (BTW, I just read that they're making The Hobbit and splitting it into two movies. A 300 page book requires two movies now. Thanks, nerds.) What we ultimately get are a series of movies that suffer by being all-inclusive. RotK itself takes a long time to get going. Once it's wound up, it's a lot of fun. The battle sequences are fantastic, and despite the gayness, Frodo and Sam's venture to Mount Doom is well done, if a bit long. From a technical standpoint, the movie is top notch. The story holds your interest, but it's missing an emotional investment that would rank it among the great epics. I've heard some people say that Sam carrying Frodo moved them to tears, but that's just silly. This ain't Old Yeller here. There's orcs and elves flitting about. Crying during this movie places you on the Stability Chart just above the kid who killed himself when his D&D character died. I like these movies, but I have to be completely honest and say they're not perfect. They needed some cuts. If I want the full story, I'll read the books. Speaking of which, RotK captured my imagination well enough that I thought about returning to the books. (I read the first book one summer long ago and started the second, but needed a break from them and never returned.) I actually loaded them onto the Kindle this afternoon after I finished the movie, so now they're ready when I am. That is a credit to the movies.

Twist: I watched the Extended Director's Holy Shit This Is Everything Edition because that's what I had on hand. I don't know the original well enough to know what's new, but it felt like a mix of good and bad. The bad was it took an hour for the movie to get going. The good explained some things a little better like the dead dudes who came to the rescue at Minis Tirith. Originally, they almost seemed like a deus ex machina who stormed in to save the day. Here they get a few extra scenes that nicely fill in the blanks. Also, there's the Mouth of Sauron which is fucking creepy and must also be new because I would've remembered that shit. That was good old-fashioned nightmare fuel there.

Did it deserve to win?: The movie itself probably didn't, but this was all about honoring the entire series. It's arguable if it's even the best of the series. But it was a weak year with only Mystic River and Master and Commander standing out from the crowd. My vote would've gone to Lost in Translation which you either agree with or wonder what I'm smoking.

The movie: (out of 5)

The entire series: (out of 5)

Up next: Million Dollar Baby

Just went through the list of 2003 movies and I can't really get worked up about anything. Lost in Translation is my choice too, but I understand RoTK.