Oscar Nominees for Best Film

[odanny]

I have not seen any of them, will definitely watch Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon as well, but the one I most want to see is Zone of Interest.

I don't think any film has a chance to win this award from Oppenheimer.

How to Watch All the 2024 Best Picture Nominees

Ahead of the Academy Awards this weekend, here's how to watch all the movies you may have missed in theaters.

www.townandcountrymag.com

 

[Donald H]

Is Oppenheimer a true story or has it been dressed up with propaganda and is posing as true, similar to the movie on Schindler's List?

It's never helpful when stories are embellished for the sake of politics.

 

[rightwinger]

Is Oppenheimer a true story or has it been dressed up with propaganda and is posing as true, similar to the movie on Schindler's List?

It's never helpful when stories are embellished for the sake of politics.

I think Oppenheimer was too long. More than a movie about building the bomb, it was a story about Communism and the 50s witch hunts

Not a movie I want to watch again

 

[rightwinger]

I saw Barbie and lasted about 40 minutes

About as much of BarbieWorld as I could tolerate

 

[Donald H]

I think Oppenheimer was too long. More than a movie about building the bomb, it was a story about Communism and the 50s witch hunts

Not a movie I want to watch again

Propagandizing movies claiming to be true accounts does more harm than good.
Thanks for the tip! I think I won't watch it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Holdovers was VERY good.... a must see.

Killers of the Flower Moon... you know, love him, hate him - Decaprio is just freaking good, but like RW said - it was waaaaay too long. Needed some serious editing.

Oppenheimer - not as good as Holdovers. Not that it was a bad movie, just wasn't as impressed as I am supposed to be. But because it paints America in a VERY bad light - it is a shoe in for the award.

Haven't seen the rest yet

 

[Flopper]

Is Oppenheimer a true story or has it been dressed up with propaganda and is posing as true, similar to the movie on Schindler's List?

It's never helpful when stories are embellished for the sake of politics.

Dramatizations based on true events almost always dress up the story; that is they take literarily license in order to involve their audience. I have read rather extensively about the Manhattan project and Oppenheimer. Without taking some literary license, audiences would be leaving the theater long before the 3 hours is up.

 

[Flopper]

Propagandizing movies claiming to be true accounts does more harm than good.
Thanks for the tip! I think I won't watch it.

When looking at how close the movie matches real events and the real story, there are several terms to be aware of:

• Inspired by true events means the major event did occur but the story can be about anything.
• Base of true events means that most of the events did occur but the story may or may not follow the real story
• Docudrama means the all major events are factual and most of the story matches the actually story with only slight literary license.
• Documentary means what you see, both events and story are factual

However, there is no law that forces filmmakers to follow these definitions. As with everything Hollywood does, it is all about the money.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have not seen any of them, will definitely watch Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon as well, but the one I most want to see is Zone of Interest.

I don't think any film has a chance to win this award from Oppenheimer.

How to Watch All the 2024 Best Picture Nominees

Ahead of the Academy Awards this weekend, here's how to watch all the movies you may have missed in theaters.

www.townandcountrymag.com

Well I have zero interest in the Oscars and don't think their criteria for best film fits with any of my own evaluation of what is or is not a grat movie. In my opinion Oppenheimer could have been a great film but is not due to excessive editing acrobatics. But that's just one woman's opinion and I certainly have no credentials or authority to affect the process in any way.

 

[Donald H]

When looking at how close the movie matches real events and the real story, there are several terms to be aware of:

• Inspired by true events means the major event did occur but the story can be about anything.
• Base of true events means that most of the events did occur but the story may or may not follow the real story
• Docudrama means the all major events are factual and most of the story matches the actually story with only slight literary license.
• Documentary means what you see, both events and story are factual

However, there is no law that forces filmmakers to follow these definitions. As with everything Hollywood does, it is all about the money.

The first three can and usually do contain lies. The fourth one is supposedly free of lies

 

[Flopper]

The first three can and usually do contain lies. The fourth one is supposedly free of lies

If we consider drama to be a lie then we must consider novels, poetry, painting, sculpture, and even most music to be a lie because the purpose is not to present facts but be bring joy to the viewer, listener, or reader.

 

[rightwinger]

The first three can and usually do contain lies. The fourth one is supposedly free of lies

Nobody knows what dialogue actually happened. It is just created for dramatic effect.
Changing historical fact is not acceptable.

There were no Jack and Rose or secret diamond on the Titanic. That was made up.
But the Titanic did sink

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Nobody knows what dialogue actually happened. It is just created for dramatic effect.
Changing historical fact is not acceptable.

There were no Jack and Rose or secret diamond on the Titanic. That was made up.
But the Titanic did sink

It is all good - IF - the story at least represents the "spirit" of what actually happened.
A bad example is "Flowers Moon" - to make that movie without J.Edgar Hoover's involvement is a tragedy. The movie was at least 30 minutes longer than it should have been, scenes that did not move the story forward, or even part of the story - but they left out Hoover???
Without Hoover, the story is not even a story. The murders and theft would have continued for perhaps decades.
But they didn't want to make Hoover look good in a movie, so they erased it.
That is wrong.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dramatizations based on true events almost always dress up the story; that is they take literarily license in order to involve their audience. I have read rather extensively about the Manhattan project and Oppenheimer. Without taking some literary license, audiences would be leaving the theater long before the 3 hours is up.

After John Ford made 'My Darling Clementine' (the shootout at the OK Corral story) a film critic asked him why he varied from the actual events. Especially since Wyatt Earp had told him all about the shootout.

Ford replied "Did you like the film?"
The critic said, "Yes, it is one of my favorites"
To which Ford snapped "What more do you want?"

 

[rightwinger]

Well I have zero interest in the Oscars and don't think their criteria for best film fits with any of my own evaluation of what is or is not a grat movie. In my opinion Oppenheimer could have been a great film but is not due to excessive editing acrobatics. But that's just one woman's opinion and I certainly have no credentials or authority to affect the process in any way.

I think critics and Oscar voters have lost touch with what makes a good movie.

If you look at Rotten Tomatoes reviews, you can see the difference between what a critic says and what the audience says.
Critic Reviews are often such a word salad that you wonder if they actually watched it. Reading audience reviews are usually close to what I observed.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I think critics and Oscar voters have lost touch with what makes a good movie.

If you look at Rotten Tomatoes reviews, you can see the difference between what a critic says and what the audience says.
Critic Reviews are often such a word salad that you wonder if they actually watched it. Reading audience reviews are usually close to what I observed.

I pay attention to a handful of youtube critics also... just regular folks that critic movies.
The ones that are good now have a million or more followers.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think critics and Oscar voters have lost touch with what makes a good movie.

If you look at Rotten Tomatoes reviews, you can see the difference between what a critic says and what the audience says.
Critic Reviews are often such a word salad that you wonder if they actually watched it. Reading audience reviews are usually close to what I observed.

Agree. Good movies, including the really old 'hokey' ones., had characters you could relate to, great acting, strong cohesive story lines, brilliant cinematography, and creative editing that added little touches that didn't have to be there but greatly added to the enjoyment of the film. Example: Spielberg was/is a master at those little touches. In "Twister" the husband's fiancee is at the counter in the diner speaking to his soon to be ex-wife: "You're still in love with him aren't you." The brief expression on the waitress's face at that was priceless. Such little things aren't necessary but really add to a film.

Most of today's films are too often pedantic or disorganized dialogue, one note flat characters, gratuitous profanity, sex, violence, exaggerated editing with endless flashbacks, side bars, mixed timelines so interrupt the story line it is sometimes difficult to even find a plot, and brilliant cinematography is replaced with excessive special effects.. As a result we see very few movies that have been made in the last 20 years and own very few in our extensive movie collection.

And while a good movie can have lessons to teach or be inspirational or illustrate right, wrong, good, evil, nobody wants to be preached at via their entertainment and inserting a lot of in-your-face 'woke' stuff is a turn off for many.

 

[Flopper]

It is all good - IF - the story at least represents the "spirit" of what actually happened.
A bad example is "Flowers Moon" - to make that movie without J.Edgar Hoover's involvement is a tragedy. The movie was at least 30 minutes longer than it should have been, scenes that did not move the story forward, or even part of the story - but they left out Hoover???
Without Hoover, the story is not even a story. The murders and theft would have continued for perhaps decades.
But they didn't want to make Hoover look good in a movie, so they erased it.
That is wrong.

I agree.
Some directors create a stories which may or may not be supported by the facts. That's ok as long as the audience understands that they are watching fiction. And the way to do that is to include the phase, "Inspired by actual events." Then everyone should know they are watching fiction surrounding an actual event.

Here is a good example, the movie The tall Target (1951) with Dick Powell. Powell stars as a police sergeant who tries to stop the assassination of Abraham Lincoln at a train stop as Lincoln travels to his inauguration. It is based on the alleged Baltimore Plot. Audiences know what they are watching could have happen but it is not an accepted fact.
BTW, Tall Target is worth watching if you're not turned off by old b&w films.

 

[rightwinger]

I agree.
Some directors create a stories which may or may not be supported by the facts. That's ok as long as the audience understands that they are watching fiction. And the way to do that is to include the phase, "Inspired by actual events." Then everyone should know they are watching fiction surrounding an actual event.

Here is a good example, the movie The tall Target (1951) with Dick Powell. Powell stars as a police sergeant who tries to stop the assassination of Abraham Lincoln at a train stop as Lincoln travels to his inauguration. It is based on the alleged Baltimore Plot. Audiences know what they are watching could have happen but it is not an accepted fact.
BTW, Tall Target is worth watching if you're not turned off by old b&w films.

Oh I get it…

You mean like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood where Leonardo DeCaprio takes out the Manson Family with a Flamethrower?

 

[Flopper]

Agree. Good movies, including the really old 'hokey' ones., had characters you could relate to, great acting, strong cohesive story lines, brilliant cinematography, and creative editing that added little touches that didn't have to be there but greatly added to the enjoyment of the film. Example: Spielberg was/is a master at those little touches. In "Twister" the husband's fiancee is at the counter in the diner speaking to his soon to be ex-wife: "You're still in love with him aren't you." The brief expression on the waitress's face at that was priceless. Such little things aren't necessary but really add to a film.

Most of today's films are too often pedantic or disorganized dialogue, one note flat characters, gratuitous profanity, sex, violence, exaggerated editing with endless flashbacks, side bars, mixed timelines so interrupt the story line it is sometimes difficult to even find a plot, and brilliant cinematography is replaced with excessive special effects.. As a result we see very few movies that have been made in the last 20 years and own very few in our extensive movie collection.

And while a good movie can have lessons to teach or be inspirational or illustrate right, wrong, good, evil, nobody wants to be preached at via their entertainment and inserting a lot of in-your-face 'woke' stuff is a turn off for many.

The major component in great movies is great direction. I guess because audiences never see the director they assume that the actors are most responsible for success of the movie. However, that is rarely the case. Actors are skilled artists that are trained to give the director the performance he or she is looking for. The director and his staff plan each scene deciding on how each performance is to be delivered in order to accomplish the purpose of the scene which becomes a link in a chain that leads to final scene.

I believe movies are not as good as they once were because we just don't have enough good directors. In the mid 20th century about 1900 films were released in the US. By 2006, the number had increased to 11,600. By 2020, the impact of streaming services plus the huge demand for series has created a huge demand for good directors.

You can go to school and get a degree in film direction and after years in the business you can acquire the skills you need to make good movies but you still have to have the creative talent and that is what we are missing in today's productions. Too many productions lack the creative talent to touch audiences and involve them in the movie leaving audiences, bored, confused, or wondering why they just wasted two hours.