[Abyss]

Not having seen nearly that entire list, i am now uncertain whether to feel depressed, snarkily superior, or just at uneasy peace with my preference for watching movies on a couch at home.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 10 January 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 10 January 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

I was going to see it this weekend...is it not worth it?

I hear tell there is a natural stopping point at the end that it goes 3-5 minutes beyond and those 3-5 minutes ruin what might have made it a better film...?

No, that's not it. It ends at the right time - with a flashback post-assassination/deathbed to what made Lincoln worthy of praise.

The problem lies with the treatment of black people in the movie. To put it short, there is no Frederick Douglass or any amalgamation of the many black figures that helped keep Lincoln's backbone stiff for the fight over slavery and equal rights. It's not Django levels of subtle racism, but it is there. What's weird is that Mary Todd's maid gets a bit of screen time as being a black woman with a brain that's vitally interested in the political proceedings, but she's nearly alone in the film. The rest of the black people are either there to express discontent in a quiet way or shuffled in en masse for a visual effect.

In terms of Lincoln himself, Daniel Day Lewis friggin' knocks it out of the park and many of the actors surrounding him do as good a job. The problems lie with the story and with Spielberg's touch upon things.

Thanks for letting me know.

That sucks, Fredrick Douglass especially is a HUGE figure that I'd like to have seen.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 11 January 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

Thanks for letting me know.

That sucks, Fredrick Douglass especially is a HUGE figure that I'd like to have seen.

It is still worth watching, just not the best film of the year. Seriously, DDL is ah-mazing.

[Defiance]

Yet another year where Leo gets shut down by the Academy. I'm not that big of a fan of the stuff from his dreamy-boy younger years, but he's done a fantastic job in the last decade. Christopher Waltz definitely deserves the nomination, though.

Honestly, though, I'm not one to really comment on this stuff. I usually haven't seen half the movies that get nominated, so it would be kind of silly to say that "x" definitely deserves best picture when I haven't even seen "y" and "z."

[McLovin]

amphibian, on 11 January 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 11 January 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

Thanks for letting me know.

That sucks, Fredrick Douglass especially is a HUGE figure that I'd like to have seen.

It is still worth watching, just not the best film of the year. Seriously, DDL is ah-mazing.

I would point out that the film is fairly tightly focused on the passage of the 13th Amendment and how Lincoln gets it done, not the whole history of the abolition debate. So I think the omission of certain figures is OK here.

That said, I do agree with the criticism that they should have cut those last 5 mins or whatever. Which is sad, because his Second Inaugural Address is one of the best speeches ever and it deserves a place in the film. Just not there.

[polishgenius]

Saw Les Miserables yesterday, and I have to say, I agree with Tapper's reviewers on the cinematography. It wasn't terrible, but there were places where I wish the camera would sit the fuck down and stop swirling around the place - and I wasn't too fond of all the close-ups either. Some were okay, but some were way too close.

At other times it was really good though, and in general the whole look of the piece was stunning, it was acted great, and sung well enough (even Russell Crowe, who I reckon's been too harshly criticised for it). Most of the problems I had with it were the same problems I had with the play, and slightly less so than the performance I saw (ie Hooper did focus a bit more on the actual revolution and Javert/Valjean over the whole Marius/Collette thing).

I liked the film quite a lot in general.



Just saw Django Unchained earlier as well, and it was excellent for the most part, though a bit overlong in places and Jamie Foxx wasn't as convincing as Tarantino's main characters usually are. Don't think it's got a serious chance at best picture...