one of the years best films

kanjiklubb  asked:

I haven't seen any of the Raid movies, although they have been on my "to watch" list for awhile now. How do they rank among the asian/martial arts movie scene in recent years?

Put simply, they’re the best thing to come out of martial arts cinema in decades. I genuinely think they reinvented what could be done in action films today.
While Hong Kong was giving us glare and style in their fight scenes (”Ip Man”) and Thailand was giving us brutality (”Ong Bak”), Gareth Evans combined the two and revolutionized fight choreography.
On top of that, not only is “The Raid 2″ one of the best action films of recent years, it’s one of the best films.
It’s an epic crime film borrowing its depth from the gangster classics of yesteryear. It’s stupidly good.
And it’s weird just how different they are. The first is a flat-out action film from start to finish. The second is a world expanding crime epic with action beats that will blow your socks off.
I recommend watching them right away.

tiberiusmulder  asked:

My favorite Bill Paxton film is Frailty, what do you think of it?

I mean, it’s hard to get better in terms of a pure Bill Paxton experience. He delivered a great performance, a layered performance, and then to lead a film that is that good overall, that well-crafted, it’s really one of the first things people should go back and check out. He directed that movie incredibly well. It truly is a Bill Paxton film. 

It’s insane to think of the career Paxton could have had as a horror director. But he still had an amazing career regardless. From Aliens to Titanic and Twister, to True Lies and Weird Science… he really demonstrated incredible range, which he sadly never quite got enough credit for. 

The first two things I watched after hearing the news were Aliens and Near Dark. Both are exceptional movies in which he gives really terrific performances. Near Dark might be one of the best villain performances in horror in the last 40 years. He’s so good in that.

One of the things I saw come out of last night’s historic Oscars was a lot of (understandable) anger towards white privilege, racism, homophobia, Hollywood nepotism and favouritism, and mainstream cinema. The issues surrounding these are real and valid, and these topics should often be dissected and criticised. But one of the things I also keep seeing is backlash to La La Land, calling it a mediocre film that deserves its loss.

La La Land does indeed represent the out of touch and self indulgent side of cinema; it sings and dances a culturally-embedded narrative about white America and Hollywood. But to say that La La Land was uninspired and average is undermining Moonlight’s monumental win. La La Land is a strongly made, dynamic, superbly-acted spectacle. I do in fact consider it one of the best movies of the year, one that makes your heart soar, all of its problematic suggestions aside. But to call it mediocre is to ignore the might of the winner of the Best Picture category.

is a tender, gentle and heartbreakingly beautiful portrayal of a young gay black man’s life. It was nothing short of a masterpiece of a character study, and a challenge to contemporary cinema, veering away from the idealised notions of coming of age stories. Barry Jenkins, the film’s producers, the cast and crew came together to give the world a movie it desperately needed to see, and to give voice to tales that should be told and breathe life into characters in whom movie-goers can find themselves or at least, appreciation for the rest of humanity. In the face of spectacle, sincerity won. A small, intimate portrait of American life held more power in all its images and meanings than the other contenders – some of which are also excellent films. Arrival focusses on a mother’s grief, and communicates loss and understanding using a genre one would never expect. The Western is given a 21st century update with Hell or High Water, highlighting and contextualising poverty and desperation of small town life, and the lengths one would go to for family. These films are forces to be reckoned with, and the “clear winner” leading up to the Oscars was one about dreams and love, not about “a black boy’s blues”. But as Jenkins said while holding his award, “To hell with dreams, I’m done with it, because this is true.”

had tough adversaries, and it won. Deservedly so. It was in a category among other worthy peers. See the beasts that it has bested, and think of Moonlight’s win as David slaying an industry full of Goliaths. Not because it was pitied into winning, but because its shot was true and strong.

anonymous asked:

Why do you believe Oscars are not that important? Genuinely curious.

Because it’s just an awards show that means nothing. Members of the academy already go in with a huge bias towards films about show business in one form or another, it also doesn’t help that there’s a history of bribery with the films.

Mainly though, their decisions almost always mean nothing. Even if you hate everything else about it, you can’t deny that The Neon Demon is easily some of the best cinematography of the year. So where’s the nomination? And you can argue “If they thought the rest of the movie was terrible, then there’s no point in nominating it for anything.” Which is stupid logic, but I’ve heard it before. And it wouldn’t make a lick of sense when Suicide Squad was nominated for Best Makeup, and Fifty Shades of Grey was nominated for best original song last year.

Some of the other great movies of the year, like Elle, The Nice Guys, and The Witch, also got snubbed in categories they easily deserved. The way I see it, the academy doesn’t nominate the best movies of the year, they nominate the best movies that everybody saw. They can’t risk giving best cinematography to The Neon Demon or even nominating The Nice Guys (an absolutely excellent comedy) for anything at all, because those movies didn’t make any money. No, we have to nominate movies people actually saw, so more people will watch.

And you can just call me salty that my favorite movie of the year didn’t get the recognition I felt it deserves (I’m not mad that The Neon Demon got snubbed in every other category, I understand why it wouldn’t get nominated for anything else, but having excellent cinematography is almost unanimously accepted) but there’s more to it. Let’s take a look at history for a second.

1998, we had some great films come out. Both The Big Lebowski and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas broke new grounds in the genre of dark comedy, they’re excellent films that we celebrate and study to this day. But hey, of course they didn’t get any recognition, but that’s fair. After all, we got the clearly deserving best picture winner, Saving Private Ryan. A compelling, tragic, thoughtful, and brilliantly made film. Easily one of Spielberg’s best, and one of the greatest war films (just films in general) ever made. Oh wait… that didn’t win best picture, did it? No… so was it those other two great films I mentioned? Haha no, of course it wasn’t. It was Shakespeare in Love. Yep, best picture of 1998, Shakespeare in Love. Oh how that excellent film with its gimmicky premise and overall okay presentation has just become such a staple in film history. Give me a fucking break.

1971, A Clockwork Orange is nominated for best adapted screenplay, best editing, best cinematography, best director, and best picture (not best actor, despite the fact that McDowell knocked it Out of the park)
Okay, a classic such as that has to have at least one of those in the bag. I mean come on, best director, Stanley Kubrick? It’s an obvious pick. Well that’s too bad because The French Connection won every Oscar that Clockwork was nominated for. Every single one. And, it won best actor for Gene Hackman too. Now French Connection is a great film, but in what universe is it better directed, better acted, and just an overall better movie than ACO?? It’s not. Also, Dirty Harry got no recognition. I don’t know, I think that movie does a few things better than French Connection as well.

The Shining got no Oscar recognition whatsoever, in fact none of Kubrick’s films have ever won best picture, assuming some of them were even lucky enough to be nominated. The same thing can be said about Alfred Hitchcock. Two of the greatest filmmakers of all time. No love. No best picture awards, for what we clearly consider to be deserving of such an award.

And it clearly hasn’t ended. Even considering all of that stuff I said about The Neon Demon, The Nice Guys, Elle and The Witch (apparently Swiss Army Man was pretty great too, and got nothing as well) we can look at last year alone to further prove my point. Spotlight won best picture. Do we even talk about Spotlight anymore? It’s only been one year and we’ve just stopped talking about it. We sure as hell still discuss The Revenant and Mad Max Fury Road, but Spotlight… I could be wrong, but I don’t see that coming up in any film dissection conversations.

Look, the Oscars recognize plenty of deserving talent, but as a whole it’s just a corporate awards show that determines nothing. Those little stamps of approval help in selling movie tickets and Blu Ray/on demand sales for a little while and that’s it. Only time decides a classic, not an award show.

anonymous asked:

Do you think the better film won?

No. I think the more socially/politically relevant film won. And I support that for what it is. But it wasn’t even the second best film imo. I would’ve rather seen it go to Hidden Figures, Fences, or Lion over Moonlight. The best film was La La Land though. Cinematically, it’s superior.

But they did this last year with Spotlight and Revenant. The better film got Director, and the more “important” film got Picture. I can see why they’re doing, but I don’t really agree? I think the better film should always win. And the past two years it hasn’t. 

The year of 12 Years of Slave they split Director and Picture as well. That one made sense because Gravity was a feat to direct, but it wasn’t the better movie. It worked with the split of Argo and Life of Pi for the same reason. But it doesn’t really work as well with this year and last year. The whole package just isn’t there for those Best Picture winners. 

The Importance of Jackie Chan’s Oscar

So I’m going to have to start this particular entry with a warning: this might get a little emotional for me. 

The 89th Academy Awards, otherwise known as the Oscars, was last night. So many wonderful wins–I was thrilled with Viola Davis and Mahershala Ali’s wins. And even though it happened in a weird way I was absolutely ecstatic about the much-deserved Best Picture win that was given to Moonlight (which I maintain is the best film I’ve ever seen). 

But perhaps the most personally significant win was not one that was awarded at the actual ceremony, but was awarded at the Governor’s Ball to Jackie Chan, a Lifetime Achievement Award. 

After 56 years in the industry and over 200 films… Jackie Chan finally gets to take this trophy home with him. 

There are a lot of reasons why this is important to me. 

First and foremost, who doesn’t love Jackie Chan?! He’s hilarious, blends martial arts skills with comedy in a perfect combination, has an unbelievably kind smile, likes to sing, and is a Panda Ambassador. Yes, a PANDA AMBASSADOR. He owns 2 pandas in China whom he saved from a natural disaster and is an advocate for the protection of the cutest bear ever. 

He brought 2 stuffed animal pandas as his date to the Oscars. STOP BEING SO ADORABLE JACKIE CHAN. 

I mean really though, does anyone in the world have a happier smile? 

Secondly, he reminds me of my dad. My dad is a goofy guy who can make anything into a joke (come hell or high water…) I feel like my dad has very much the same sense of humor as Jackie Chan. The combined appreciation for slapstick humor and humility and wisdom that seems to exude off of Chan really does remind me of my dad. This acceptance speech seems like something my dad would have done… (its the most endearing 3 minutes ever).

Jackie Chan is also fiercely proud of being Chinese. He has never apologized for being a foreigner. He’s fluent in Chinese and English but has never shied away from the fact that he has an accent. His humor and style translate across both languages. For me, having struggled my entire life with accepting and loving my Korean heritage, seeing someone love himself and his country of origin so much is really inspiring. He sang as part of the opening and closing ceremonies for the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics (maybe another reason he reminds me of my dad, because my dad also sings). 

Finally, and arguably most importantly, I grew up watching Jackie Chan films. Not just Shanghai Knights and Rush Hour…. I grew up watching his CHINESE films. Drunken Master, Project A, Police Story, etc. I wasn’t close to my family growing up because in Korean households, children are meant to be seen and not heard. It’s not abnormal for many immigrant children to feel disconnected from their families. 

But the one thing my younger brother and I had were his films that we watched with our parents. Whenever Jackie Chan was on the screen, all four of us came together, literally, to watch a silly action movie. I could put aside my (valid and invalid) resentment towards my parents, they could put aside whatever (real or perceived) wrongs my brother and I had committed. We would sit in the living room, lights off, watching Chan literally bouncing off walls and using all manner of props to fight off his enemies, laughing, groaning, and “Awesome!”ing together. 

Jackie Chan’s films gave me an irreplaceable connection to my family when I spent most of my youth feeling disconnected from them. It was something all of us could always agree on–Jackie Chan is a hilarious badass. 

And now, after 200 films, he FINALLY gets to take home the most prestigious award that the American film industry can offer. He has entertained all of us. To me, it’s so significant to see an Asian take home this prize. An Asian who had to make 200 FILMS… TWO HUNDRED, to get a formal recognition of the sort. (I mean I know Dicaprio had to wait a long time but come on…) 

And predictably he was funny, humble, and thankful. 

j0llybee  asked:

hi, i recently started following you so i apologize if this has been asked or addressed before. why do you think casey affleck deserved the best actor award? i personally felt that his acting was not compelling enough to win, but i know i am biased about him because of his rape/sexual assault allegations. that aside, i did feel strongly that his win was not deserved; since you are a fan, what do you think are the strong points about his performance in manchester by the sea?

I really appreciate you being so respectful about this message. One part of my feeling comes from the fact I’ve felt his talent has been severely underappreciated for years and years - namely, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is not only my favourite film, but his performance is one of the best I have ever experienced, and I believe he was really robbed that year. So a lot of my desire for his win stems from just wanting him to finally get that recognition (although now it’s shit timing, apparently). And in Manchester, I really related to his character’s repression of such pain and distress, and for me, having to convey huge emotions being repressed is quite a feat - it was an introversion of agony and self-hatred, and the only way it came out was often through just his eyes or the ways he didn’t look at people or didn’t do things. And that’s an area Casey has always been really fantastic at in his acting. Honestly, it was beautiful to watch, for me. I definitely am surprised that kind of performance got such acclaim from all kinds of awards because, yeah, it certainly can seem underwhelming - especially when Denzel was very loud, very big, and also very very good (I would have been really happy with his win too). This year was actually really surprising with the Oscar wins, to me. And in the end, in this instance, I am happy for Casey’s talent that I have revered for years, not necessarily for him as an individual.


The 2017 Oscar acting nominees are the most diverse lineup in a decade

  • After two straight years of #OscarsSoWhite, the Academy produced their most diverse lineup of acting nominees in a decade — and tied the record for their most inclusive ever.
  • Seven actors of color (specifically, six black actors and one Indian actor) earned nominations for the film industry’s highest acting honor.
  • The number ties 2007 and 2005’s record of seven. The seven nominees of color are:
    • Denzel Washington, Fences
    • Ruth Negga, Loving
    • Mahershala Ali, Moonlight
    • Dev Patel, Lion
    • Viola Davis, Fences
    • Naomie Harris, Moonlight
    • Octavia Spencer, Hidden Figures
  • Like 2007, which featured multiple nominees from movies like Dreamgirls and Babel, 2017’s list was buoyed by multiple nods for movies like Fences and Moonlight. Those two, plus Lion and Hidden Figures, are best picture nominees as well.
  • Only four years have featured more than five nominees of color in the Oscars’ acting categories: 2017, 2007, 2005 and 2004 (with six). Read more

follow @the-movemnt

so you mean to tell me beyoncé gave us one of the greatest albums i’ve ever heard, combined with a literal art film rather than music videos and put her everything into this literal artistic and musical feat so y’all could give adele best record and album of the year for basically rereleasing her last two albums with new and terrible vocals


anonymous asked:

hey, can you break down the differences between the adventure zone and critical role for me? i haven't listened to either and now i'm curious

Oh gosh, okay. They’re delightful but… very different approaches to the same general idea (broadcasting a D&D game), and I think the fans of one show tend to have a sort of skewed impression of the other show, so here’s my thinking.

Just the basics, to begin with: The Adventure Zone started running in late 2014, and it’s an audio-only podcast in which the McElroy brothers and their dad start a brand-new D&D campaign from scratch. Critical Role started running in early 2015, and it’s a video podcast in which a bunch of best-friend voice actors started filming the D&D campaign they’d already been playing for years at home with the same characters. TAZ is (generally) prerecorded and lightly edited down, CR is 100% live. Both have a lot of howlingly funny and surprisingly touching moments, both get a lot more intense the more you get into them, and both are good shows that are a Good Time, especially when they make you feel things you didn’t sign up for. The main canon of TAZ is currently 56 one-hour-long episodes, with new episodes every two weeks, and CR is currently 85 four-hour-long episodes, with new episodes every week. Most of the reason for CR’s absurd length comes down to (a) three times as many players, and (b) no editing.

The DMs both put a ton of work into the world, but they also have very different approaches. Griffin (TAZ) is DMing for the first time, while Matt (CR) has talked about how DMing D&D games for the past 20 years is what got him interested in acting in the first place. The world of TAZ is much more of a sci-fi/fantasy hybrid, while CR sticks more to traditional fantasy.

TAZ plays fast and loose with the rules, which can be both a delight and a frustration for storytelling reasons—for instance, until the latest arc both spell slots and HP were not really tracked, which means (a) Griffin has had to come up with incredibly creative ways of introducing risk and limitations to the game, and (b) those incredibly creative ways can start to get pretty damn brutal. The mechanics of the game feel like an imposition on the story, most of the time—it’s rare that you get a dice roll that makes a huge difference to the plot (but when you do, as in the most recent episode, it’s pretty darn cool). As a result, the biggest spanner in the works of Griffin’s plans tends to be in the form of out-of-the-box thinking from his players, which they excel at; I think there is a tendency to railroad the plot as a result, but it’s a good story and it’s well worth a little bit of elbowing to keep everyone on track. Magical items also play a huge role, with viewers of the show submitting awesome new trinkets for the heroes of the story to use/abuse/completely forget about.

Because CR tilts more towards the rulebook (although Matt gets more than his fair share of shit for homebrewing and letting things slide and defaulting to the Rule of Cool), chance plays a much bigger role in the story. Matt’s simultaneously battling some incredibly creative players and dice that seem determined to roll as dramatically as possible. Entire subplots have been wiped out by a strategic roll, and in order to be able to adapt to that on the fly, Matt has to be hyper-prepared and have a lot of possible branching points. It’s absurdly open-world, especially now that the characters have the ability to travel instantly through different planes of existence, and Matt keeps pace with a story that feels more character-led than DM-led; railroading is practically nonexistent, which means you get incredible plot developments and super-deep characterization… but it also sometimes leads to long circular conversations trying to figure out what to do next. Because the players are all actors, there’s also a lot more that’s just straight-up improv theater: it’s not unusual (especially lately) to go for verrrry long stretches of riveting conversation without anybody rolling dice (I can think of a moment where Matt could’ve just had everyone fail a charisma saving throw against an NPC but instead just straight-up charmed them all in real life with words).

I’ll put it this way: CR is a basketball pickup game between friends who’ve been playing together so long that they kind of have their own home rules going and stick to them. TAZ is out there playing fuckin’ Calvinball. Both are great fun, but if you go into one expecting the other you’re in for a bad time.

Both shows have a lot of great NPCs, although Critical Role’s format gives them a lot more time and depth to shine (there are episodes where an NPC will have as much or more “screen time” than some of the player characters). Both shows have LGBT representation among player characters and NPCs alike that, while not perfect, is generally improving as the show goes on. For me personally, one of the more frustrating things about going from CR to TAZ was going from three female player characters and a metric fuckton of extremely deep characterization for all the female NPCs to no female player characters and many great and memorable female NPCs who nevertheless don’t get too much screentime or development just because of the the structure of the show.

TAZ is pretty shaky throughout the first arc (Griffin’s fighting a bit of an uphill battle getting everyone to sit down and actually play the game, which is funny in and of itself), but things slowly start to come together and the real potential of the show becomes clear once they break the heck out of the 5e Starter Set. I think the “Murder on the Rockport Limited” arc is what started to pull me in, and it’s not until the latest arc that I’m starting to get the character development I really crave in that show. Critical Role also takes a little while to find its footing, and to me the Briarwood arc (starting around episode 24) is where the mood of the show starts to solidify, with episode 40 and beyond really pushing from “this is cool, I’m enjoying how these interpretations of fantasy tropes are sometimes kinda unusual and off-the-wall!” to “how is this the most honest and genuine character development I’ve ever seen in media what the heck is happening here”.

So yeah. TAZ isn’t total chaos with no plot or effort put into it, CR isn’t a humorless wasteland of mathematical minutiae and rigid formulaic approaches. Both shows are great fun, both are IMO in an upswing and getting better and better as they go along, and I heartily recommend them both if you know what you’re getting into. Have fun!


Believe the hype: ‘Hidden Figures’ is as great as it looks

The choice to give Hidden Figures an Oscar-qualifying run ahead of its wide release next year was a wise one: This movie is a home run, a veritable fist-pump of a film that celebrates the tremendous success of these women while never forgetting exactly how difficult their journey to the stars was.

Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer and Janelle Monáe are all terrific — the latter coming off an incredible debut year as a film actress, having also co-starred in Moonlight — and the supporting ensemble is strong across the board. (Hidden Figures makes for a great best ensemble SAG nominee.) Their performances, with Schroeder and Melfi’s smart script in tow, keep these figures from becoming mere chess pieces in history. Their wants, their needs, their loves and their pains are rendered with specificity and sympathy.

In truth, Hidden Figures would have been required viewing no matter what because of its historical importance. But now, it’s a movie you’ll be anxious to see again minutes after walking out of the theater. Read our full review

follow @the-movemnt

It’s an honor to receive such a great award right from January this year. Thank you to Bighit Entertainment, Bang Shihyuk PD-nim and our families. Pdogg-hyung, Dohyungie-hyung, Junsangie, Donghyukie who made our music, thank you so much. Like our album’s title last time, WINGS, the ones who gave us wings, our ARMYs, thank you so so much. Happy new year and we love you.

ARMYs, we have laughed, we have cried and we have gone through hardships in 2016. I hope there will be more days that we can laugh in 2017. Thank you.

And earlier we received Best Music Video Award and Best Dance Performance Award. Thank you director Lumpens for always filming great music videos for us and teacher Sungdeuk, we love you.
—  Jin & Jungkook & Jimin, Bonsang, 26th Seoul Music Awards

Imagine being Jensen’s best friend.

Pairing: Jensen x Reader 

Warnings: All the fluff

Word Count: 1.6k

A/N: This is like a marriage of a couple fics that I’ve written in the past with a different twist on it. I hope that it’s no so similar that you guys are booing it right out the gate. I really enjoyed writing this one. Hope you enjoy it. 

Feedback Welcome

Keep reading


The Grammys just made it crystal clear: It values music that is plain, safe and white.

Beyoncé’s Lemonade went into the night a critical favorite by far, but every time it went up against Adele’s 25, it lost. Adele’s “Hello” took best pop solo performance over Beyoncé’s “Hold Up;” it also took song of the year over “Formation,” making for a clean sweep for Adele.

The Lemonade visual album — arguably the most powerful aspect of Beyoncé’s release, and a film widely hailed as one of the most ambitious and profound creations in that medium — was beat out by a Beatles tour documentary for best music film.

We’ve seen this special brand of erasure year in and year out at the Grammys. For the past eight years, white artists have taken the show’s album of the year award over black artists. 

Adele’s win simply reinforces the norm and provides even further proof that Grammy voters have trouble recognizing quality black art. Read more (Opinion)

follow @the-movemnt

The Romanian who acts in Hollywood’s greatest blockbusters. An exclusive interview with Sebastian Stan on ProTV on 1st of December.

From Constanta to Hollywood, from Romania the country of all possibilities, Sebastian Stan is the most wanted and popular actor of Romanian origins from Hollywood.
In just a couple of years, his career had a fulminant ascension, culminating with one of the most profitable film series in history – Captain America.
Rares Nastase, ProTv correspondent, talked with Sebastian Stan in New York, in one of the best cafes from Manhattan. The exclusive interview will be broadcasted on ProTv for the 1st of December special edition.

Keep reading


Paltry noms for women directors at the 2017 Golden Globes

First the (slightly) good news. There were two films directed by women nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 2017 Golden Globes: Divines directed by Houda Benyamina for France and Toni Erdmann directed by Maren Ade for Germany. 

Another minuscule bright spot: Hailee Steinfeld was nominated for Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy for her role in Kelly Fremon Craig’s The Edge of Seventeen, one of the few wide releases directed by a woman of 2016. 

But that was essentially it for films directed by women. No women or films directed by women got nominations for directing, Best Picture, Song etc and there were no other performances nominated that were directed by women. 

In a sense this was somewhat predictable. Awards season is a business and as long as Hollywood keeps shutting out women they are going to continue to be ignored when it comes to awards. There were many women directing critical favourites this year (aside from Toni Erdmann, American Honey, Certain Women and The Love Witch have shown up on numerous critical Best Of lists) but these either came from tiny studios or had a box office so small it couldn’t justify the millions a distributor would need to spend campaigning for awards, or both.   

On the other hand Hollywood showed us just what sort of people they do nominate. Mel Gibson, who was turned into a social pariah a few years ago after tapes of him verbally abusing his girlfriend using racist language leaked and who physically assaulted her while she was holding their child scored multiple nominations for Hacksaw Ridge, including the prestigious Best Director and Best Picture. Casey Affleck, who settled a case where he was accused of sexually assaulting female employees of his on the set of his mockumentary I’m Still Here, continued to rack up awards with a Best Actor nom for Manchester By the Sea. Earlier this year we watched publication after publication go after Nate Parker and torpedo his Oscar chances and now we get to watch as two white men, accused of similar violent assaults against women go for Oscar glory. 

The lack of nominations for women directors would be appalling on its own, but paired with these nominations for two men who have documented cases of abuse it seems like a surreal slap in the face to anyone who cares about women, justice and equality.