....But I definitely think Django Unchained should've won best picture. I can't be the only one who thinks that
shareDjango? I'm not sure. But Inglourious Basterds definitely should have won the Oscar instead of The Hurt Locker.
shareDjango is more of a cult classic than a truly great movie. Argo has all the ingredients of a mainstream best picture, while Django is aimed at a limited audience. I personally love Django but I'm realistic, it's not going to win the Academy over Argo.
shareI personally liked Django Unchained better (9/10), although I still thought Argo was pretty awesome (8/10). However when comparing the two side-by-side, Argo will win the Academy over every single time. It's more accessible for audiences, it's slightly faster paced, it's got an underlying patriotism feel to it, and it's a solid mixture of suspense and light comedic relief. Not to mention, some people are very off-put by the frequent use of the N-word, even in a movie about slavery.
I understand what you're saying, because I personally do prefer Django over Argo, however I'm not surprised, nor upset that Argo was the best picture winner. It's deserving in its own right.
I'm not surprised, nor upset that Argo was the best picture winner. It's deserving in its own right.Don't kid yourself. The reason Argo "won" was that Affleck had so blatantly sucked up to Hollowood by pretending that the fake movie story had been vital, when it was no such thing. No Iranian official ever asked about the movie or cared. But Hollowood loves to feel like it was important in the "escape", when it wasn't at all.
You think you can bully people, you keyboard coward? Good luck with that. Just shows the kind of person you are. I for one, will stand up to you. Shouldn't have to, but there it is. So who's more in the wrong, the bully or the guy standing up to him?
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
How am I "bullying" if I'm merely pointing out the facts and the reality?
I for one, will stand up to you.Well, bully for you. Why don't you start by attempting to disagree with me by providing some sort of logical and factual rebuttal that might demonstrate why you think I might be mistaken in any of my assertions?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I never specified American patriotism. The movie is patriotic, however, and patriotism, or any feel-good finale of the "good" country winning over the "bad" country, always sits well with people.
Again - I watched Argo because I wanted to watch a movie. Not a documentary. In all honestly, I don't care about how true to real-life events it was because a 100% realistic portrayal would've probably been much more boring and less interesting. Argo could've been completely fiction for all I care, I still would've like it the same.
I'm sorry that your uncontested eye for historical accuracy prevents you from enjoying this movie. Maybe you should stick to documentaries.
But don't you see how pitiful it is to make a "feel good" movie that is nothing but a pack of lies designed to con the gullible?
People constantly try to make excuses for Argo by pointing out that it wasn't a documentary. If Affleck had told the exactly the same tale, but had placed it in another place and time instead -- say, Bolivia in 2010 -- nobody would have objected, least of all me. If all YOU wanted was excitement, that should have worked for you just as well.
But to have the dishonesty and GALL to pretend that you're telling about events that really happened in Iran in 1978, when at least 85 percent of your story is bogus and total b.s., that is called LYING.
He just wanted to give his movie credibility by pretending it had anything at all to do with real events, when it did NOT.
Most of the people who were THERE at the time are still alive. They see people in the movie with their names, who were even cast because they looked like them -- but they see them spending nearly two hours doing things that they KNOW THEY NEVER DID. How does that make them feel?
And for Affleck to play up and exaggerate what Mendez did, just so he could play the "hero" himself, while omitting the REAL hero completely, was just an absolute disgrace. John Sheardown, who was the Canadian diplomat who had sheltered four out of the six Americans in his own home for MONTHS, isn't even mentioned in the movie! How was that fair or grateful to a man who had risked his life to help his neighbours who were in a jam?
Sheardown died recently, but his son Robin said he had been very hurt and upset that Affleck had cut him out of the story completely -- while pretending that Mendez had been the real hero. The truth, of course, was that Mendez only arrived at the last minute and never took any of the Americans anywhere, not at any time. It seems that Affleck just wanted an AMERICAN hero -- even if he had to falsify the history completely to pretend there had been one.
Django's last 30 minutes were a mess. Terrible finish to a movie that is 45 minutes too long.
share