END OF
SPR WAS JUST ANOTHER WAR FILM >YAWN<
Thanks God the Academy voters are more intelligent than the average american who has to be spoon fed patriotism and are confused by nuance and true genius.
lolz
shareRecapping the 1999 Oscars Ceremony, When Shakespeare Beat Spielberg
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/02/1999-oscar-ceremony-recap
This year’s annual 20 year Oscars recap by @rilaws is, predictably, a delight and, less predictably, contains this deeply haunted GIF of Kim Basinger.
https://t.co/S7Twrkls0g
https://twitter.com/i/status/1097971277392953344
I think both are pretty good.
sharethe d day scene in this movie was ballz to the wallz badass!! i never saw shakeasspeares love feast but that movie sounds gayyyyyyy
shareI liked Shakespeare in Love at the time, but I haven't really been back to revisit it in the twenty years since its release. I find it a tad shallow, the script oddly sloppy in places, and the production values competent but hardly outstanding. What it does still have in its favour however is a brilliant score and some memorable performances, particularly from the always peerless Dame Judi Dench and, surprisingly enough, Ben Affleck as a pompous and hammy thespian.
Saving Private Ryan is a much more impressive achievement, both in terms of production and in terms of storytelling, although my personal favourite films of 1998, The Truman Show, and The Big Lebowski, weren't even nominated for Best Picture.
My personal favorite films of 1998: The Truman Show, and You've Got Mail!
shareI've never seen You've Got Mail, as much as I love Tom Hanks. It didn't really appeal to me.
Can you explain why you'd recommend it?
Now there's a thought-provoking question! I aggressively avoided You've Got Mail for years, but then I finally relented and watched it, and was totally won over. After much thought, here's why I would recommend it:
1. It's an unabashed, unapologetic romantic comedy, and a prototype for Hallmark Channel.
2. Its paradoxical world-view. It's BOTH very nostalgic for a long-vanished past, yet also very forward-facing: "the future is now".
3. All of the actors give excellent, believable performances of nuanced, quirky characters.
4. No anger, violence, hysteria, screaming.
5. It's a time capsule that perfectly captures what the late 1990s were like in a big American city (in this case, NYC).
6. It's not role-model movie: there's no affirmation, validation, or empowerment lessons. It simply tells the story it has to tell, and moves on.
7. The premise sets up a wide-open horizon of potential futures. There was never any sequel, but it's fascinating to think about how the characters would have gone forward with their lives after the end of the movie and where they would be today if they were real people.
You've Got Mail is not without its faults, and I realize not everybody will appreciate what I see in it, but the above is the best answer I can give on this particular day.
Here, here !! I see nothing wrong with a charming, delightful comedy winning over a turgid war drama. Ryan begs us to take it to heart while SIL beguiles us with charm and fun. Makes me think of Shakespeare's Henry V versus A Midsummer Night's Dream. Must we favor the war epic over the romantic comedy? I say nay.
shareGood stuff. Well said. SIL had originality and wit. SPR was a decent war film so well done for coming 2nd.
shareI couldn't agree more! HBO played SIL a few times last year, and it does hold up. It's a damn good film, if a bit frustrating because with a few tweaks and some re-casting it could have been absolutely perfect... but it's a charming, funny, and touching film.
I'm no fan of war movies, and couldn't watch "SPR" all the way through.