Massive over-generalized complaints about the film industry and culture without ever actually getting into movie itself. Did you even see it? I can't be sure with this one. Armond White couldn't have done it better himself.
god that review was hilarious. One of the reasons I never watch the Oscars is because the nominees and winners are always so boring. I'm positive that they're perfectly fine as films and actors (well, except for Sandra Bullock last year -shudder-) but they're always so typical. The only reason I watched the '09 Oscars was because of Ledger winning for playing the Joker (and after that I switched the TV off)
Of course, Steven Spielberg's little WWII movie fell to Harvey Weinstein's cosmic powers…
Just a point of constructive criticism: it would be funnier and more effective if each time you list a criterium, you show a whole bunch of award-winning movies that fit it. You showed a few, but mostly just described The King's Speech.
Yeah, there was a bit of whine “wahh the movies I like don't get the Oscars” but I laughed, and although we didn't get much information on the film, it was a nice and different review, nice Bob.
But does anyone still take the oscar seriously? I mean, not just the nerd end of the public, but I see also the main stream one don't see the Oscars the same way as before, as a grand achievement for a production that shall be remembered for years to come.
Now it's more like the Hollywood patting themselves in the back saying “good job guys, we are awesome” Picking the most bland stories and actors to prize. Hell, they even pick directos or actors that were nominated before and didn't get the statue to make “justice” now if a far inferior production, like Scorsese. So now Oscars are charity too?
Whatever… Oscar is a private party guys, and we weren't invited. Let them have their fun.
And Helloween, think of Inglorious Bastards as the “bizarro” King's Speach. And of course, no Oscar for you!!
Oh and to further it, yea, it was a funny vid, especially since it's so true. That said, Hollywood used a movie as bait for the Oscars, but not for a best film, instead for a best actress. Hence, why Sandra Bullock won an Oscar, which I saw was the biggest travesty since Marisa Tomei won for My Cousin Vinny.
Yeah it's true. I didn't see the King's Speech because it just did not look interesting at all. I'd bet that it is a well-made, acted, and directed movie that that perfectly encapsulates all the old tropes that have been done to death.
But honestly on the flipside there's not a whole lot that I see as being much better. People talk about how great the Social Network is but all I really see is a story of young people living a high fast and furious lifestyle with a splash of trendy techno bits thrown in, which I've seen enough of already too.
I think at this point this really just comes down to “movies that appeal to old people” vs. “movies that appeal to young people”. The old people are still in charge. Print your winner cards. Que the orchestra.
But like Lucas said the Oscars are for the filmakers. The show used to be a big deal in America a couple decades ago, but now it's just Hollywood begging for us to pay attention to them.
.. And some people wonder why people are stopping having and opinion on the enternet.. I mean, with some of the comments on this blog that just tells bob to shuff it?
What can I say, it's all opinion based. I liked this video, it was some pretty funny and mostly true points.
The only thing I am capable as viewing the Oscar's as is also just very successful rich people clasping other very successful rich people on the shoulder.
And I can't even see why it matters so much for the film makers to win or not? What do matter to me the most as a writer is how the reader experiences it, if a reader had such a strong experience that my story stuck with them longer after, and they come to me and tell how it made them fell. Then I think I have reached the highest goal possible, and I honestly couldn't care less if an dusty academic professor can tell me whether the story is well structured or not.
Of cause I structure my stories, but choosing between the comments. “It was clever structured of you.” or. “I laughed so hard, and then I cried.” I would really rather have the last one, then I succeeded in delivering a god damn experience.
The King’s Speech maybe “Oscar Bait”, but it is a true story that was kept secret (for the most part) at the request of the Queen Mother. When the Queen Mother passed, Seidler (who also stuttered) was given permission to use Lionel Louge’s notes to write this story. Seidler had waited over thirty years for this moment. The actual King George IV was overshadowed by the events and people of that era. You have many great, historic speeches that we recognize instantly, while King George VI struggled to say almost every word. If you know someone with an obvious stammer or stutter, or have one, then you know how it can be a terrible impediment that brands a person. Speaking is something we take for granted. Most people worry about proper grammar, and not their ability to say simple words like: My. Please. Father. Brother. Mother. Yes. No. This is not a disability that is seen, but heard, and anyone who has—or is trying to—overcome this disability knows how hard it can be. Does that mean that this movie should sweep the Oscars? No. But, why should a movie with unlikeable characters, has no emotional connection or meaning to its audience, and no arc—Win—just because it has a good script?
Dude, it's not about how much a disablity sucks, or another movie with no likeable characters but good scritp win the thng, the point Bob was triyng to make, I think, is that the King Speach is not that good.
Cool, it's a true story, and nice to see a topic like overcoming stammer in WWII, but overall, it's just a normal movie with all gimmicks we've seem before and really, not that special.
The best movie should be the one that leave an impression, the one tha MAKE people go see them because they are the talk of the moment, the ones that no only entretain you, but also make you fell. And those movies comes in a lot of different formats and stories, and seeing how the academy just narrow their choices like we've al seem before, it's a bit of a let down.
“The best movie should be the one that leave an impression, the one tha MAKE people go see them because they are the talk of the moment, the ones that no only entretain you, but also make you fell. And those movies comes in a lot of different formats and stories, and seeing how the academy just narrow their choices like we've al seem before, it's a bit of a let down.”
What feeling did the Social Network have? Please, tell me. The movie jumped between a deposition and the timeline of Facebook's creation and rise to dominance.
I think everyone here agrees that the Academy needs to make some changes, but taking that aspect and blaming a movie wasn't the best idea, imo.
And, imo, he really never really reviewed the movie.
Who ever wins, wins. The hurt locker is now forgotten, while Avatar is still making money.
Great video, I find the Academy's narrow tastes very aggravating as well. I've heard the King's Speech is great, and I'll probably go see it soon, but it's kind of sad that the “formula” is often so predictable. To be fair, they are getting better (eg Lord of the Rings) but slowly.
As ever, Bob, a fantastically produced video that I thoroughly enjoyed watching despite disagreeing with your overall indifference towards TKS. I liked it a lot, and it personally appealed to me and everyone else I've spoken to about it. Perhaps we're not quite so jaded in Ireland when it comes to pandering to the academy.
That said, I can see your point about it being Oscar bait, but I am pretty sure you could apply any such diagnostic logic to any winner of any major award in cinema; Clayton above said that he only watched the '09 show to see Heath Ledger win. A terrific performance, of course, but posthumous grandstanding no doubt. Tom Hanks has two, for having AIDS and being a simpleton. To decry any winner or nominee as trite and formulaic is to claim the rubric by which the film is judged as the problem. Is all I'm saying.
Wow. Pretentious much? The King's Speech was a wonderful movie. Its a period drama revolving around a character who has much more going for him than just a speech impediment. Firth, Rush and Carter, all imbue a lot of depth to their characters. You go on and on about stupid story arcs like the Green Lantern, but somehow anything based on a true story in an interesting setting is simply made because its 'Oscar bait'. Yeah. Sure. Well im glad u dont sit on a committee of relevant movies. I thought it was easily one of the best movies of the year, right up there with Black Swan and Fighter.
jeez whats with the hostility in the comments he never said the kings speech was bad he just said it was a formulaic period piece that took no real risks in its execution no need to bitch and whine over how he found the kings speech unworthy of an oscar
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
Whine, whine, whine, whine.
Massive over-generalized complaints about the film industry and culture without ever actually getting into movie itself. Did you even see it? I can't be sure with this one. Armond White couldn't have done it better himself.
LikeLike
AHAHAHA great video nonetheless.
Plus nothing came out this week, Sanctum looks kind of like ass, but it will be at least watchable because of James Cameron.
I think I'm the only person in the world who didn't cream themselves when I saw Avatar, and I'm okay with that.
LikeLike
god that review was hilarious. One of the reasons I never watch the Oscars is because the nominees and winners are always so boring. I'm positive that they're perfectly fine as films and actors (well, except for Sandra Bullock last year -shudder-) but they're always so typical. The only reason I watched the '09 Oscars was because of Ledger winning for playing the Joker (and after that I switched the TV off)
LikeLike
There's one slight problem with this theory, Inglorious Bastards fit a couple of these descriptions and it ended up losing to Butthurt Locker.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
Of course, Steven Spielberg's little WWII movie fell to Harvey Weinstein's cosmic powers…
Just a point of constructive criticism: it would be funnier and more effective if each time you list a criterium, you show a whole bunch of award-winning movies that fit it. You showed a few, but mostly just described The King's Speech.
LikeLike
Yeah, there was a bit of whine “wahh the movies I like don't get the Oscars” but I laughed, and although we didn't get much information on the film, it was a nice and different review, nice Bob.
But does anyone still take the oscar seriously? I mean, not just the nerd end of the public, but I see also the main stream one don't see the Oscars the same way as before, as a grand achievement for a production that shall be remembered for years to come.
Now it's more like the Hollywood patting themselves in the back saying “good job guys, we are awesome” Picking the most bland stories and actors to prize. Hell, they even pick directos or actors that were nominated before and didn't get the statue to make “justice” now if a far inferior production, like Scorsese. So now Oscars are charity too?
Whatever… Oscar is a private party guys, and we weren't invited. Let them have their fun.
And Helloween, think of Inglorious Bastards as the “bizarro” King's Speach. And of course, no Oscar for you!!
LikeLike
Wow, Bob. You're not even pulling punches here. This could get you flamed. Then again, what hasn't?
That said, interesting stance. I would have hoped you reviewed “The Mechanic”. But, oh well.
LikeLike
Oh and to further it, yea, it was a funny vid, especially since it's so true. That said, Hollywood used a movie as bait for the Oscars, but not for a best film, instead for a best actress. Hence, why Sandra Bullock won an Oscar, which I saw was the biggest travesty since Marisa Tomei won for My Cousin Vinny.
LikeLike
Yeah it's true. I didn't see the King's Speech because it just did not look interesting at all. I'd bet that it is a well-made, acted, and directed movie that that perfectly encapsulates all the old tropes that have been done to death.
But honestly on the flipside there's not a whole lot that I see as being much better. People talk about how great the Social Network is but all I really see is a story of young people living a high fast and furious lifestyle with a splash of trendy techno bits thrown in, which I've seen enough of already too.
I think at this point this really just comes down to “movies that appeal to old people” vs. “movies that appeal to young people”. The old people are still in charge. Print your winner cards. Que the orchestra.
But like Lucas said the Oscars are for the filmakers. The show used to be a big deal in America a couple decades ago, but now it's just Hollywood begging for us to pay attention to them.
LikeLike
.. And some people wonder why people are stopping having and opinion on the enternet.. I mean, with some of the comments on this blog that just tells bob to shuff it?
What can I say, it's all opinion based. I liked this video, it was some pretty funny and mostly true points.
The only thing I am capable as viewing the Oscar's as is also just very successful rich people clasping other very successful rich people on the shoulder.
And I can't even see why it matters so much for the film makers to win or not? What do matter to me the most as a writer is how the reader experiences it, if a reader had such a strong experience that my story stuck with them longer after, and they come to me and tell how it made them fell. Then I think I have reached the highest goal possible, and I honestly couldn't care less if an dusty academic professor can tell me whether the story is well structured or not.
Of cause I structure my stories, but choosing between the comments. “It was clever structured of you.” or. “I laughed so hard, and then I cried.” I would really rather have the last one, then I succeeded in delivering a god damn experience.
LikeLike
The King’s Speech maybe “Oscar Bait”, but it is a true story that was kept secret (for the most part) at the request of the Queen Mother. When the Queen Mother passed, Seidler (who also stuttered) was given permission to use Lionel Louge’s notes to write this story. Seidler had waited over thirty years for this moment.
The actual King George IV was overshadowed by the events and people of that era. You have many great, historic speeches that we recognize instantly, while King George VI struggled to say almost every word.
If you know someone with an obvious stammer or stutter, or have one, then you know how it can be a terrible impediment that brands a person. Speaking is something we take for granted. Most people worry about proper grammar, and not their ability to say simple words like: My. Please. Father. Brother. Mother. Yes. No. This is not a disability that is seen, but heard, and anyone who has—or is trying to—overcome this disability knows how hard it can be.
Does that mean that this movie should sweep the Oscars? No. But, why should a movie with unlikeable characters, has no emotional connection or meaning to its audience, and no arc—Win—just because it has a good script?
LikeLike
@Tyler
Dude, it's not about how much a disablity sucks, or another movie with no likeable characters but good scritp win the thng, the point Bob was triyng to make, I think, is that the King Speach is not that good.
Cool, it's a true story, and nice to see a topic like overcoming stammer in WWII, but overall, it's just a normal movie with all gimmicks we've seem before and really, not that special.
The best movie should be the one that leave an impression, the one tha MAKE people go see them because they are the talk of the moment, the ones that no only entretain you, but also make you fell. And those movies comes in a lot of different formats and stories, and seeing how the academy just narrow their choices like we've al seem before, it's a bit of a let down.
LikeLike
I don't know if I should say this but “The Social Network” is technically based on a true story, although heavily modified.
LikeLike
“The best movie should be the one that leave an impression, the one tha MAKE people go see them because they are the talk of the moment, the ones that no only entretain you, but also make you fell. And those movies comes in a lot of different formats and stories, and seeing how the academy just narrow their choices like we've al seem before, it's a bit of a let down.”
What feeling did the Social Network have? Please, tell me. The movie jumped between a deposition and the timeline of Facebook's creation and rise to dominance.
I think everyone here agrees that the Academy needs to make some changes, but taking that aspect and blaming a movie wasn't the best idea, imo.
And, imo, he really never really reviewed the movie.
Who ever wins, wins. The hurt locker is now forgotten, while Avatar is still making money.
LikeLike
Great video, I find the Academy's narrow tastes very aggravating as well. I've heard the King's Speech is great, and I'll probably go see it soon, but it's kind of sad that the “formula” is often so predictable. To be fair, they are getting better (eg Lord of the Rings) but slowly.
LikeLike
As ever, Bob, a fantastically produced video that I thoroughly enjoyed watching despite disagreeing with your overall indifference towards TKS. I liked it a lot, and it personally appealed to me and everyone else I've spoken to about it. Perhaps we're not quite so jaded in Ireland when it comes to pandering to the academy.
That said, I can see your point about it being Oscar bait, but I am pretty sure you could apply any such diagnostic logic to any winner of any major award in cinema; Clayton above said that he only watched the '09 show to see Heath Ledger win. A terrific performance, of course, but posthumous grandstanding no doubt. Tom Hanks has two, for having AIDS and being a simpleton. To decry any winner or nominee as trite and formulaic is to claim the rubric by which the film is judged as the problem. Is all I'm saying.
LikeLike
Bob,
It must suck being so bitter and jaded.
I liked the film, so did the wife.
I seriously doubt a UK produced film and director care about the Yank Oscars.
They probably just wanted to make a great film.
Oh:
King's Speech
Budget $15 million
Current box office $145,568,496
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Budget $60 million
Box office $47,651,508
[Jeremy Clarkson]
LOSER!
[/Jeremy Clarkson]
LikeLike
Wow. Pretentious much? The King's Speech was a wonderful movie. Its a period drama revolving around a character who has much more going for him than just a speech impediment. Firth, Rush and Carter, all imbue a lot of depth to their characters. You go on and on about stupid story arcs like the Green Lantern, but somehow anything based on a true story in an interesting setting is simply made because its 'Oscar bait'. Yeah. Sure. Well im glad u dont sit on a committee of relevant movies. I thought it was easily one of the best movies of the year, right up there with Black Swan and Fighter.
LikeLike
jeez whats with the hostility in the comments he never said the kings speech was bad he just said it was a formulaic period piece that took no real risks in its execution no need to bitch and whine over how he found the kings speech unworthy of an oscar
LikeLike