Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,559
Likes: 1,391
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 24, 2018 7:39:41 GMT
so where does it stand on this vs 15:17
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Post by oneflyr on Dec 24, 2018 16:48:26 GMT
definitely hyped, 15:17 already one of the best in a mediocre year.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Dec 24, 2018 19:29:33 GMT
Yes, the character uses the word dyke after he is told “we are not gals we are dykes on bikes” and calls a black family negros and when told that is not a terms used any more he readily accepts that. So once again, how is the MOVIE homophobic or racist? I shouldn't have to explain it if you've already seen it, but here's one of the many articles that does (and better than I would, being a white man). hiplatina.com/the-mule-racist-clint-eastwood/You should have to explain it since you haven’t addressed anything I wrote and I’m not clicking on that link. I’m assuming you have not seen this film and are just going by hearsay you read in some bs article.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
The Mule
Dec 24, 2018 19:31:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by Zeb31 on Dec 24, 2018 19:31:18 GMT
wow this thread became a mess. . Fitting response to basically 70% of all of this board's discussions this past month.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Dec 24, 2018 21:38:16 GMT
wow this thread became a mess. Anyway, definitely not planning on seeing this. There's too much stuff in my watchlist to bother with an Eastwood project with lukewarm reviews. I'm sure that'll make him lose sleep
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
The Mule
Dec 25, 2018 9:17:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by wattsnew on Dec 25, 2018 9:17:13 GMT
definitely hyped, 15:17 already one of the best in a mediocre year. Normally I would assume a comment like this is sarcasm, but on this forum I can't be so sure.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Dec 25, 2018 22:51:02 GMT
so where does it stand on this vs 15:17I like it more
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,559
Likes: 1,391
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 26, 2018 1:01:13 GMT
definitely hyped, 15:17 already one of the best in a mediocre year. Normally I would assume a comment like this is sarcasm, but on this forum I can't be so sure. most of the patro crowd seems to dig it
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Dec 27, 2018 11:55:17 GMT
He uses the word dyke, calls a black family the n word, etc. Are you criticizing the movie for being homophobic and racist, or the character for being homophobic/racist? There's a big difference. Just because a film contains racist or homophobic characters, doesn't mean the filmmaker, writers, and producers are the same. The whole point of those scenes was to show Stone being out of touch with the 21st century, not he looks down upon black people or lesbians. I find it interesting you find the word "negro" and "dyke" to be offensive. We literally have the "United Negro Fund" and groups called "Dykes on Bikes". The fact you would be "triggered" by this is rather troubling. I don't know you personally, but it would be a shame if you have problems separating character beliefs and filmmaker beliefs. Your cinema world would be pretty narrow.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Dec 27, 2018 12:06:01 GMT
I'm glad some people are liking it. I'm also glad that someone is accusing Eastwood of racism and citing a website named "hiplatina." I think it's one of the best films released in 2018. As much as I like everything about it on the narrative level, the main appeal for me is the way in which it serves as a remarkably personal statement from Eastwood. He's made a film that feels like a confessional, a raw reflection on his own regrets in life. Casting his real life daughter as his character's estranged daughter is one of the boldest decisions any director made this year. The movie moves through so many moods and ideas with a genuine grace, navigating a complicated tone expertly and without much awkwardness. When it transitions into a weepy melodrama in its final 30 minutes it feels miraculously rational and inevitable. Almost no other movie released this year so completely reduced me to a sobbing mess. I liked too Moonman. My issue here is with the setup. Earl deciding to join the Mexico Cartel lacked any personal reflection or moral conflict. He decides to blindly accept the role of a drug mule without asking questions or understanding what he was delivering from point A to point B. The Pecan scene should have never been a shocker to him. In real life, Leo Sharply joined the Mexican Cartel with full knowledge of what he was doing and learned it from his co-workers, not some random guy at a party. Everything else worked really well for me. I am a big fan of Eastwood's work, even with J. Edgar and Blood Work. The film for Eastwood is more of a personal reflection for him. Eastwood feels bad that he became an actor and director, and at times, put work ahead of family.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 27, 2018 12:34:22 GMT
When I saw "3 Billboards" on the big screen - and this applies to both times I saw it (a 10/10 for me - something no 2018 film has come close to imo btw), there is an amazing scene in the film where Woody Harrelson tells McDormand in an ingratiating (he thinks) way "if you got rid of every cop with vaguely racist leanings, you'd have... 3 cops left and all of them are gonna hate the ____."
Both times, at that point, quite early in the film, that line was greeted with audible gasps and some angry comments to the screen. But that scene doesn't compromise in any way - it's exactly right for both characters in that moment, exactly what the Harrelson character would say and McDormand's reaction is quite logical too - nothing at all - she has heard such jokes before, she's a grown woman after all, not a child. Her reaction is nothing because in the overall scheme of things her mind is elsewhere.
That scene is indicative of the problem filmmakers have now - it's in some ways THE great scene addressing race in any modern film maybe - because it's sly, disturbing and plays as 100% real. You can either craft characters or you can fake it - Blackkklansman if I'm to believe it a contender to win BP - win for Godsakes - crafts almost complete fakes and is then called "brave and truthful" (by some) - when rather it is merely a fake projection of those archteypes - ie they debate the social implications of Shaft and Superfly in the period (riiiiiight). That's the childish level of racial discourse we have in American cinema now - revisionist scenarios of fictitious conversations from 40 years ago.
I haven't seen The Mule but even I could tell from the clips that this Clint character and that behavior ties to the character and would in some ways represent what he is actually doing too (ie the world had passed him by, his life has passed him by, his choices and thoughts no longer fit with the world etc., he gets no second chance, it's too late).
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Dec 27, 2018 16:50:08 GMT
literally go fuck yourself BLAH BLAH BLAH I AM A MAN AND I HAVEN'T SEEN SOMETHING BUT I HAVE OPINIONS BLAH BLAH BLAH jesus christ
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 27, 2018 18:51:39 GMT
I haven't seen you make an intelligent or coherent post ever on here but I have opinions on that too moonie.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Dec 27, 2018 19:13:53 GMT
I haven't seen you make an intelligent or coherent post ever on here but I have opinions on that too moonie. please go ramble about how 3 Billboards is a masterpiece because of its treatment of race in another thread you moronic boob
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 27, 2018 19:19:35 GMT
Why so you can follow me there too lover? Wherever I ramble it seems you follow me and read it all.
F*ck 2 posts ago........boob 1 post ago......"moon" (ass) man .........so revealing, someone should start a thread.
Hmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by stinkybritches on Dec 27, 2018 19:27:42 GMT
He uses the word dyke, calls a black family the n word, etc. Honestly the worst part was just how terribly boring it was. Eastwood's character says "negro", not THAT n-word. Ya fuckin' dolt. And the way you seem to be framing his use of the word "dyke" shows an utter ignorance of the context in which it was used (he only says it after one of the self-proclaimed "Dykes on Bikes" says it). You haven't seen the film or you're just a buffoon.
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Dec 27, 2018 21:15:52 GMT
I liked the movie quite a bit.......
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 27, 2018 22:39:10 GMT
Here's a question - what are its Oscar prospects? and did Warner Bros delay screenings and press just out of fear of critical backlash or is there some other kind of master strategy to keep it from being seen as an Oscar player so as not to jiggle A Star is Born as their main item?
Some rumors that Clint just didn't wanna campaign for this one. If they sent out screeners it was a very minimal effort (some critics, some pga members). And the studio hasn't allowed for this one what's called a "guild pass" - where guild members get free access to screenings - but they did for ASIB and Crazy Rich Asians and others.
I know the Academy has been voting younger lately....and Clint's only a bonafide living legend, who cares right? But they voted big on the very meh American Sniper (including a Picture nom) and if Bruce Dern could get in for Nebraska (a solid performance in a solid movie, but imo nothing special) why not Clint? The answer is there won't be enough voters who've seen it. That's why Rami Malek will probably get a nom where I think pretty clearly Clint should be. There's no precedent for a major studio leading performance at that age--at least I don't think there is? Harry Dean Stanton in Lucky last year (where he's great) isn't the same thing; that was a tiny indie production and we love Stanton but he isn't the indelible household figure tht Clint is.
We might look back and say how'd he miss out? Well, bc Warner Bros preferred their shallow film....
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Dec 27, 2018 22:44:26 GMT
Here's a question - what are its Oscar prospects? and did Warner Bros delay screenings and press just out of fear of critical backlash or is there some other kind of master strategy to keep it from being seen as an Oscar player so as not to jiggle A Star is Born as their main item? Some rumors that Clint just didn't wanna campaign for this one. If they sent out screeners it was a very minimal effort (some critics, some pga members). And the studio hasn't allowed for this one what's called a "guild pass" - where guild members get free access to screenings - but they did for ASIB and Crazy Rich Asians and others. I know the Academy has been voting younger lately....and Clint's only a bonafide living legend, who cares right? But they voted big on the very meh American Sniper (including a Picture nom) and if Bruce Dern could get in for Nebraska (a solid performance in a solid movie, but imo nothing special) why not Clint? The answer is there won't be enough voters who've seen it. That's why Rami Malek will probably get a nom where I think pretty clearly Clint should be. There's no precedent for a major studio leading performance at that age--at least I don't think there is? Harry Dean Stanton in Lucky last year (where he's great) isn't the same thing; that was a tiny indie production and we love Stanton but he isn't the indelible household figure tht Clint is. We might look back and say how'd he miss out? Well, bc Warner Bros preferred their shallow film.... Its Oscar prospects are ZERO. I would be shocked if it received a single major guild nomination.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 27, 2018 22:52:57 GMT
Here's a question - what are its Oscar prospects? and did Warner Bros delay screenings and press just out of fear of critical backlash or is there some other kind of master strategy to keep it from being seen as an Oscar player so as not to jiggle A Star is Born as their main item? Some rumors that Clint just didn't wanna campaign for this one. If they sent out screeners it was a very minimal effort (some critics, some pga members). And the studio hasn't allowed for this one what's called a "guild pass" - where guild members get free access to screenings - but they did for ASIB and Crazy Rich Asians and others. I know the Academy has been voting younger lately....and Clint's only a bonafide living legend, who cares right? But they voted big on the very meh American Sniper (including a Picture nom) and if Bruce Dern could get in for Nebraska (a solid performance in a solid movie, but imo nothing special) why not Clint? The answer is there won't be enough voters who've seen it. That's why Rami Malek will probably get a nom where I think pretty clearly Clint should be. There's no precedent for a major studio leading performance at that age--at least I don't think there is? Harry Dean Stanton in Lucky last year (where he's great) isn't the same thing; that was a tiny indie production and we love Stanton but he isn't the indelible household figure tht Clint is. We might look back and say how'd he miss out? Well, bc Warner Bros preferred their shallow film.... Its Oscar prospects are ZERO. I would be shocked if it received a single major guild nomination. Yeah idk if it'll make DGA or PGA, probably not, its best shot was SAG for Clint but I don't think they put it out for that anyway. Its prospects are likely zero but I'm also asking why, and I thought we could rag on Warner Bros a little. Haha. Also curious if people think the quality of his performance isn't "worthy" to be nom'd and how so?
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Dec 27, 2018 23:00:16 GMT
I liked the movie quite a bit....... OH DID YOU, NOW (indiscernible screeching/name-calling)
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 27, 2018 23:05:34 GMT
This just isn't an awards movie because it's simultaneously too much of a genre movie and too "difficult" and oblique. Most of the important things in the movie are unspoken subtext, it's why so many people seem to be walking away from this thinking "nothing" happened in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Dec 27, 2018 23:07:22 GMT
if Bruce Dern could get in for Nebraska (a solid performance in a solid movie, but imo nothing special) why not Clint? Bruce Dern got an absolute shitload of critic noms, won NBR, and was nominated for pretty much every solid precursor. The Academy also loves Payne (picture/surprising-ish director nom)...... and ya know, his performance is one of the best of this decade at the very least. The Mule was dumped late, has close to zero passion, and the (idiotic) backlash isn't helping it any either. Quit pretending that you didn't like A Star is born... lol.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 28, 2018 5:08:10 GMT
if Bruce Dern could get in for Nebraska (a solid performance in a solid movie, but imo nothing special) why not Clint? Bruce Dern got an absolute shitload of critic noms, won NBR, and was nominated for pretty much every solid precursor. The Academy also loves Payne (picture/surprising-ish director nom)...... and ya know, his performance is one of the best of this decade at the very least. The Mule was dumped late, has close to zero passion, and the (idiotic) backlash isn't helping it any either. Quit pretending that you didn't like A Star is born... lol. True about Dern and the precursors, of course - I was mostly referring to quality. We just won't know how critics awards etc would've rewarded Clint (or not) if they saw the movie y'know as normally as any late release is pushed, instead of being dumped like some second-rate Mark Walhberg pic! A Star is Born, performances very good and I liked the fresh first half but that's about it, second half felt extremely patchy, from the pacing to the leaden emotional beats one after the next, muddled themes, lost me. I'm still not convinced that it earns its tragedy - I haven't seen the previous versions's's's but does it ring just as false in those too? Okok, digressing too much, this gab is for the ASIB thread!
|
|