Beautiful Mind overrated???? (spoilers)

→ in
Tools    





I saw it a couple of weeks ago now and i have to say it dissapointed me.
Now before all the Academy members lynch me i have to say why i surpose....
Though Crowe was at his usual brilliant best i thought it was a bit slow, it tried a bit too hard to be a drama and thus win the hearts of the oscar voting public etc. It just seemed ordinary somehow and not a step up or anything new for that matter. Yes, it was a great story of disability overcoming etc etc but... well, it just didnt do it for me and i consider myself relatively open to a good drama.

For a 'best picture' it was somewhat wanting anyway. Certainly worthy of some Oscar nominations and perhaps wins but not the biggie.
__________________
Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, a beating purges the innermost being.
Proverbs 20:30



I can see why it won, but i dont agree with it. First of all, Lord of the Rings is a sci-fi/fantasy movie so that automatically discludes it from winning. Pretty soon the academy is going to have to let a sci fi movie win. I am getting real sick of them winning only best special effects, editing etc. Beautiful Mind was more politically correct. Even though it was only about 10% true, it still was pleasing to the academy. Lord of the Rings should have won, but didnt. Thats all there is to it



Guy
Registered User
I think the film's quite overrated. I saw the film early, and knew that this film would win all the Oscars. It's just the kind of movie that wins Oscars, deserving or not.



I agree with Untouchable. The Academy has also not "honored" any comedies with Best Picture for several decades. Sometimes I wish the Oscars would just go away and let an awards show with less politics and stupid ideals take over as #1.
__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.



HELL YES
__________________
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me



Doesnt it just P**S you off. Only dramas or epics seem to win. There are some great movies made each year and they only seem to get it right about half the time.
Its depressing to be a Kiwi and finally have a world quality piece to offer at the oscars and have it turned away because its not a 'human drama.' I was hoping for a LoTR win but i guess reality was the given on the day.

I hope some academy members read this thread. They send us all to see the 'best picture' and have probably disapointed millions.



i hope some academy members read this board! could you imagin having like Tom Hanks on here!



Tom Hanks rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'd like to give those academy people a piece of my mind. There have been some romantic/comedies that have won, but no comedies. dont even get me started on Titanic. that should fall in the "never watch these movies again unless you really want to see a waste of time and money" category



BEAUTIFUL MIND was interesting but confused, and three years from now NO ONE will remember that it won or care.

OF THE OTHER FIVE NOMINATED FILMS"

I usually like Altman, but GOSFORD PARK was way WAY way WAY too much about nothing. It had all the trappings of an arthouse coolfest, but it didn't deliver. Whhhhiiiimmmmpppeeeerrr...

IN THE BEDROOM was a great first and second act, but the minute the gun was picked up the movie revealed fell apart, storywise at least. It was a common ending to an inventive opening.

LORD OF THE RING DINGS should be disqualified from best picture nominations until it's a complete series. I know people who read the book disagree, but for those who haven't, the first installement wasn't a complete movie or story, and so it instantly disqualifies itself for Best Picture. (Godfather Two was an installment, but it also stood alone just fine, so there, I've answered THAT argument before it begins.)

This leaves MOULIN ROUGE, which I feel was the picture of the year of the five nominated pix. Was it overdone and gushing? Sure, but it did something the other four films couldn't manage to do at the same time:

1. Stun us with surprising good performances from lesser actors
2. Dazzle the cr@p out of us with design
3. Complete a story. That is, it not only set out to do something valid, it pulled it off.
4. Manage a broad, upbeat theme. (I don't dislike downbeat themes, but the other films themes were so lame that this upbeat one took the prize.)
__________________
You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm...



Originally posted by Ashen Shugar
Doesnt it just P**S you off. Only dramas or epics seem to win.
I was just telling a friend that I hope they institute a new Academy Award to address this problem. For this new award to exist, you'd have to dump a new one introduced this year, 'Best Animated Film'. Throw that out and replace it with: 'Best Entertainment'.

What's an entertainment?

FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, MIDNIGHT RUN, MATRIX, ALADDIN, MOULIN ROUGE, etc..

As an aspiring screenwriter, it's easier to write a decent drama than a FERRIS BUELLER. Try it if you don't believe me. I could write a LAST EMPEROR (a truly great movie, not just a cookie-cutter epic), but ANIMAL HOUSE? Good luck. Those are REALLLL HAAAARRRRDD.

In this way, LOTRs would have had a proper catagory to compete in, and it's no slur against the movie. It's an entertainment, it isn't high art. It was executed artfully, extremely so, but Senator, it was no DEER HUNTER.

Did that make sense?



The Godfather II was in my opinion better than the first one. I know most of the world disagrees with me but i like it. Even though Lord of the Rings hasnt shown all of the films, it still can stand alone without the others. It had a good plot, good action scenes, a little confusing dialogue and vocabulary but otherwis..... it should have won



Originally posted by NotTheOnly1
Throw that out and replace it with: 'Best Entertainment'.
I have another idea. Replace "Best Animated Film" with "Best Picture That Is Praised for Political or Otherwise Stupid Reasons" That way, we could have given it to A Beautiful Mind and let FOTR win the big one, as it should have in the first place.

Some of you already know this, but all of that was merely my opinion. Don't let it upset you too much.



Originally posted by untouchable
Even though Lord of the Rings hasnt shown all of the films, it still can stand alone without the others. It had a good plot, good action scenes, a little confusing dialogue and vocabulary but otherwis..... it should have won
Forgive me, but it's plot was non-existant. It was non-existant because it's the first of three acts.

Hobbit receives a Ring. Evil SOB eyeball wants the futhamucker back. Good guys band together to help Hobbit go on quest to bring Ring to where it belongs. Many complications ensue. The Hobbit begins to mature.

END OF MOVIE.

That's not a plot, or a story. It's the beginning of a potentially promising one. Even Star Wars from 77 had the sense to kind of end it in case there wasn't a next movie.



That's bull. You can probably sum up many, many great movies in a sentence or two like that. That doesn't mean they're not great. LOTR: FOTR was three farkin' hours...it was jam-packed. More character development than you can shake a stick at, and so many battles and happenings that it blows my mind. You DID see the massive sequence in Moria, didn't you?



Originally posted by TWTCommish
That's bull. You can probably sum up many, many great movies in a sentence or two like that. That doesn't mean they're not great.
I completely agree. For example, "many complications ensue" is simply just skipping over much of the plot, I think.



For being the 1st of 3, i think it has as much development and characterization that a movie can have. It crammed alot into the begin, which makes you think fast so you get the rest of the movie



Originally posted by TWTCommish
That's bull. You can probably sum up many, many great movies in a sentence or two like that.
You're suggesting I'm playing a trick, and I'm not. I write scripts as a vocation. I know what every book says you have to do, and I try to do it. LOTR's didn't bother. It had a built in audience of rabid fans that simply want the books followed as inspirationally as possible.

I'm not saying they didn't do a good job. I'm saying it wasn't a story.

Here's the Mickey Mouse summation of STAR WARS to prove you wrong:

A young farm boy wants to go to the big city. Daddy says no. Ten seconds later, Daddy and the farm are gonzo. Farm boy now has no choice but to leave. On his way out, he meets a man that teachs him a great destiny awaits him. He meets some goofy people and becomes fast friends with them. Many complications ensue. Then, the big bad a$$ in charge of killing his family has a death star aiming next at a planet he likes. He goes up into space and trusts the force.. that is.. he trusts his friend that he may have a great destiny before him. He closes his eyes, shoots the shot, saves the day. Satisfying feeling, no need to see next sequel if you don't want to. Beginning, middle, and a decent (but not complete) end.

By the way, EMPIRE, which people seem to like the best, wasn't a story. It ends in the midst of everything like LOTR. It's MIDDLE, MIDDLE, MIDDLE. JEDI is MIDDLE, MIDDLE, AND END, which is satisfying.

LOTR is BEGINNING, MIDDLE, MIDDLE. Don't say that's bull, because anyone who hasn't read the books agrees with me.[b]



You're suggesting I'm playing a trick, and I'm not. I write scripts as a vocation. I know what every book says you have to do, and I try to do it.
And like a grey Eagle swooping out of the mists flies the Silver Bullet....

Let me get this straight?
You write screenplays? You know what every book says? You do what they say to the best of your ability? Are you boring and lifeless and predictable and the same as every other hack in Hollywood? Well?

So you're saying, and not very well for a writer, that in order for a film to be good, it must have a beginning, a middle and an end, and it must make nice sense to the audience who know what is going to happen for them because it's a story and all stories are told in the way that your precise books tell you that they should be and so on and so forth?

Nup. You're wrong.

Firstly. Let's discussing beginnings, middles and ends, and satisfying films that don't do what your books say. Books. Ha. Al Pacino once said that if you go to acting school you need to unlearn everything the moment you get out. It's the same with screenwriting books. It's an art for Christsake. Not a law.

But anyway.

In ways, Memento doesn't have a beginning, middle and an end, per se. It's told backwards, and all over the place. You could say that Life of Brian ends, and quite abruptly so, halfway through one of your precious "middles", with a death and a song. Meaning of Life has no middle and no end. It's various things floating around in space. The "end" is a sudden musical number when some rich folks go to heaven. What about films that begin with the middle? Or the end? And then end with the start? What about Pulp Fiction? Did that film not work for you? There are lots of films that end of cliffhangers and sudden surprises and questions flying out of it's every crevice and Lord of the Rings is a mere one. Ditch your screenwriting books. Your becomming another product on the conveyer belt.

And next time, we'll discuss your counter attack, which will probably try to generalise the entire thing by going up a step further and talk about breaking convention in general. And then I'll bring up Mulholland Drive.

And then it's time for you to go and live in Peking.
__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com



You're suggesting I'm playing a trick, and I'm not. I write scripts as a vocation. I know what every book says you have to do, and I try to do it. LOTR's didn't bother. It had a built in audience of rabid fans that simply want the books followed as inspirationally as possible.
Books are not proof, and your vocation does not make you an authority, anymore than it would for the writer of Jason X.

I'm not saying they didn't do a good job. I'm saying it wasn't a story.
How on earth do you come to this conclusion? I sincerely hope you're not berading the movie simply because it was a book adaption. Much was changed from the book, and much was left out. It was a BRILLIANT adaption, and the movie itself deserves no negativity simply because it was originally conceived in another medium.

Here's the Mickey Mouse summation of STAR WARS to prove you wrong:
Prove me wrong? Your summation is 100% raw opinion. You chose how to phrase it, and, as a result, it served your own purpose and agenda. How does that constitute proof? Well, short answer: it doesn't.

In your summary, you mention "young farm boy wants to go to the city." A minor, pointless detail. If you were going to be even-handed (obviously you have no interest in such a thing), you'd have opened your little LOTR: FOTR summation with something along the lines of "young hobbit doesn't want to leave the Shire." But instead, to serve your own purposes, you broke it down into a few sentences...with vague sentences that are meant to cover the entire sequence of Moria, the battles with the Orcs, Rivendell, and the Nazgul. Gimme a break.

Don't say that's bull, because anyone who hasn't read the books agrees with me.
Step away from what you've read screenplays OUGHT to do, and focus on the movie alone. If you do, perhaps, like MANY, MANY others, you'll actually enjoy it, and appreciate it the way most moviegoers have, regardless of what some writer somewhere claims is the way to do things. Personally, I would never let one man's raw opinion rule my taste in movies like that.



Wait.
Chris and I agree on such a thing?!

Sound, sound, sound the trumpets, fill the air with loud hosannas!!