This movie has to be so ordinary and sober to win an academy. Having said that this movie turned out to be so obvious. I not really oppose for its Academy win only but also its presence the nomination list. Probably im coming out very strong, therefore i need some other perspective on this movie.
shareI agree. This movie did not have a lot of content in the sense that I felt there were not really many different environments or frankly too much going on except talking. We did not see much of Tehran aside from angry mobs and there wasn't much else exciting going on except going out once and then to the airport. Quit boring tbh although there was suspense twice (trying to get out of the embassy and trying to get on the plane).
I don't understand how it won any Oscars. There must have been some good bribes sent the Oscar committee's way!
To the OP: Argo fugg yourself.
"Careful, man! There's a beverage, here."
[deleted]
[deleted]
It was the best film of the year would be my answer.
shareDjango Unchained- The Academy doesn't really love Tarantino that much. They did give him the Best Original Screenplay Award. And Christoph Waltz the Best Supporting Actor oscar. Plus they didn't want to get flak for awarding a movie that has a lot of use of the n word.
Beasts of The Southern Wild- I think this one could've won. But they were also of the "lucky to be here" variety since pretty much everybody here was new to film.
Lincoln- Daniel Day-Lewis gets the Best Actor award because he's DDL. But this movie is really long however, which could work against it. And they already gave Spielberg his due with Schindler's List, amongst his other movies.
Life of Pi- It already won Best Director for Ang Lee, Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects and Best Cinematography. It didn't need Best Picture.
Amour- I haven't seen this one but it did win Best Foreign Picture. Doesn't make sense to award it Best Picture as well.
Silver Linings Playbook- It really wasn't better than Argo. J-Law won for Best Actress as well. And I think the main reason it got nominated is because they needed to show that they recognize comedies, which they've also gotten flak for. And a Best Director nom for DOR is good enough for them.
Les Miserables- Already won Best Supporting Actress for Anne Hathaway, Best Sound Mixing, and Best Makeup and Hairstyling. Also didn't need Best Picture.
Zero Dark Thirty- Thought this was a better movie than The Hurt Locker honestly. But they already gave Kathryn Bigelow two trophies for that movie. And the movie got a lot of criticism for its portrayal of torture. They didn't want to be seen as condoning that movie for that reason.
It's all politics, baby.
It had perfect political timing and delivered the message that the West expected it to.
Also, I think they liked the beard. It makes everything so much more serious and dramatic without the added difficult of having to be able to act.
A lot of people (including myself) considered it to be good?
share[deleted]
Do you know what I like to do when I want to learn history? I read a history book. Was it the most historically accurate film ever? Perhaps not, but was it gripping like very few other films? Damn right it was.
share[deleted]
If you want "gripping", here's what you do: If only 15 percent of your movie is what really happened, you tell the story in a different time and place, with completely different people. Nobody would care.
But you do NOT get to pretend to be telling a story about real events, that really happened in a particular place and time, with a cast of characters who have the same names as real people who were THERE, most of whom are still alive today -- when it's at least 85 percent hogwash and bullschitt, full of fake characters, and bogus and ridiculous scenes that NEVER happened. That's called "LYING".
Maybe you're fine with being lied to (most Americans seem to be...), but I'm sure not.
[deleted]
Because the majority of voters probably thought it was the best of the nominees.
I would agree with this.