Rank Oscars Nominated Movies 2020
- Thread starter ONE LOVE
- Start date
So I think it's kinda silly to knock a film for being too long.
If you find it to be too long take an intermission or a break or whatever.. refresh yourself and go again. You have that option now with streaming services.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
I've seen the complete Chan-wook Park oeuvre, and a few of Bong Joon-ho's other films (Memories of Murder, as well as Snowpiercer, of course). A couple of other films with Choi Min-sik, I Saw the Devil and Nameless Gangster. But not any of the ones you mention, altho I did hear wonderful things about Mother.
Yeah, SK directors have been amazing the last couple of decades. I thought it was going to be Russia that exploded, after Timur Bekmambetov came to Hollywood, but nope. He's really the only Russian director of note that I know of, and, frankly, nothing he's done in the US has been nearly as good as Night Watch and Day Watch.
How'd you like the Handmaiden?
LOL.. I was watching it at the film festival and during the lesbian love scene these old ladies sitting behind me weren't happy at all, they were saying "I didn't come to see porno!!!"
prodigy
Well-Known Member
I remember liking Mother although it's been a while and I can't remember a single thing about it.. need a re-watch.
Really enjoy Chan-Wook Park films. Thirst is a fav of mine. The other day I watched a movie called Three...Extremes. it features three horror stories by Park(Korean), Takashi Miike(Japanese), Fruit Chan(Chinese). Highly recommend that one.
The Wailing, Train to Busan are good korean ones.
sahlensguy
Well-Known Member
I've only seen two of them.
1917, which didn't not impress me.
And Marriage Story (Netflix) which I thought was incredible.
1917, which didn't not impress me.
And Marriage Story (Netflix) which I thought was incredible.
My main reason for not watching Hollywood movies is because it is damn near impossible to tell a good story in 90min.
I've liked the majority of 3hr movies I've watched. I think the default length for a movie should be 3hrs. You got some cute little **** you want to show based on like a short story or something? Sure, do a 90min movie. But if you're trying to tell an actual ****ing story, 90min is the best way to turn a good story into garbage.
Hollywood sucks. The 90min movie format sucks.
Keefe
Well-Known Member
Very, very few movies are 90 minutes.
Oh so like 105 min?
It would have been a tighter better film at 2 hours. It wasn't a 3 hour script or story. Hell i love the LOTR directors cuts at nearly 4 hours it, all depends on quality of content and story.
The 90min movie format has been increased to almost 120min. Almost.
Like I said, I have not watched a single movie produced in 2019. I haven't. And I'd have to really think If I've watched a movie produced in 2018. If I have that number is lower than 5.
In the meantime I have read 10 or so books (kind of a low for me) since 2018 but I have started listening to audiobooks since I can do that at work, when I'm cooking and when I'm driving. I have listened to about 50 audiobooks over the last year. An audiobook is usually 15 hours on the low end and sometimes 80+ hours at the high end, but I'd say most I listen to are 18-24 hours. A few of the books I've listened to have been made into a television series. They take ~20 hours of audiobook and make ~10 hours of TV series, and they have to cut important parts of the stories to do so.
Yet many 120min movies are based on books.
I'm just not a fan.
If short movies were 3hrs and long movies were 5hrs+, I could see being a fan.
You want to bust my balls over the 90min movie format (which is now often a 110min movie) because I called the 90min movie format what it is even though they are a bit longer nowadays? Okay.
They suck either way.
And people complaining because a movie was "slow" or "boring" because it actually tried to do this stupid thing called character development and have a coherent plot? Yeah, well, good thing you have Hollywood to make **** movies for you to eat up like jolly ranchers while you think you're eating a ****ing porterhouse.
Like I said, I have not watched a single movie produced in 2019. I haven't. And I'd have to really think If I've watched a movie produced in 2018. If I have that number is lower than 5.
In the meantime I have read 10 or so books (kind of a low for me) since 2018 but I have started listening to audiobooks since I can do that at work, when I'm cooking and when I'm driving. I have listened to about 50 audiobooks over the last year. An audiobook is usually 15 hours on the low end and sometimes 80+ hours at the high end, but I'd say most I listen to are 18-24 hours. A few of the books I've listened to have been made into a television series. They take ~20 hours of audiobook and make ~10 hours of TV series, and they have to cut important parts of the stories to do so.
Yet many 120min movies are based on books.
I'm just not a fan.
If short movies were 3hrs and long movies were 5hrs+, I could see being a fan.
You want to bust my balls over the 90min movie format (which is now often a 110min movie) because I called the 90min movie format what it is even though they are a bit longer nowadays? Okay.
They suck either way.
And people complaining because a movie was "slow" or "boring" because it actually tried to do this stupid thing called character development and have a coherent plot? Yeah, well, good thing you have Hollywood to make **** movies for you to eat up like jolly ranchers while you think you're eating a ****ing porterhouse.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Usually, when a movie is hyped, I see and feel let down. Not with the Joker though. It certainly isn't one of my all time favorites, but it's a great film and Phoenix absolutely crushed it. He's a quirky guy and a great actor.
Keefe
Well-Known Member
I agree with the books being made into movies thing. It’s really tough to condense 300 pages into 2 hours effectively while still remaining faithful to the substance of the book, different medium or not. I thought No Country for Old Men did it well, though the movie did not encapsulate the book to me enough. I’ve likely said this before but in the scene where Jones goes and visits his uncle (father in law? I forget it’s been so long), they chopped out the best part of the book and what it’s all about. That dialogue was unbelievable and the Coens ripped it out. That said they did a very good job. Usually, as you’ve said, that’s not the case.
The Outsider works so well on HBO because they’ve taken Kong’s source material and laid it out over what will be ten hours. Thus far, it’s worked exceptionally well.
Keefe
Well-Known Member
Like 120. Been that way for quite some time too.
LOL .. mind expounding on that?!?!
The reason I've put 1917 over The Irishman on my list is 1917 really gave me that cinematic experience you can only get by going to the cinema. Short of actually being there yourself you really do feel like you were THERE ON THE BATTLE FIELD for the 2 hours.
It was a bit thin on the acting front, but overall everything else it did well won out for me.
It was a bit thin on the acting front, but overall everything else it did well won out for me.