Damn, will Waltz ever be in a good non-QT movie?
All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
You know since I first came to this site, you (and C8) never stopped accusing me of being a snob who judges motion pictures based on his own delusional objective scale, which I never did in my life and all of my efforts to convince you otherwise failed miserably. Now look at you two. Reactions indicate this or that film which is a certified shit by fact shouldn't get any good reaction anywhere or else it cannot be trusted, bringing up critics all the time. Unbelievable. For god's sake, you haven't seen the film, you haven't viewed the performance, at least have the patience to hate on something after you have experienced the damn thing that you're so predetermined about.£Allstar wrote:There's been various reactions/reviews from test screenings all over the internet. The general consensus is the movie is bad to mediocre.Master Virgo wrote:Lol this guy. Remind me to bring this one up the next time you're denying ever being a troll.£Allstar wrote:If Amy Adams gets nominated again for a mediocre Tim Burton flick she's the new Meryl Streep.
Last edited by Master Virgo on September 14th, 2014, 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm sorry but what does her nomination has to do with the quality of the movie?Allstar wrote:If Amy Adams gets nominated again for a mediocre Tim Burton flick she's the new Meryl Streep.
I'm trying to see the negative in what you said but I can't. Explain. Because I know you were negative.
So because it's rare it's negative? What?Allstar wrote:Because it is rare actors get nominated for poorly received movies. The most recent example is Streep and she even won.
Also, I kind of feel 2/3 of her recent nominations were undeserved.
What nominations u think Streep didn't deserve and who would you have put instead of her in those years?
It shows a favoritism in my book.RIFA wrote:So because it's rare it's negative? What?
Her last two for sure. I'd put so many people in over her it would be pointless to list. Like lol @ August Osage County being nominated over Exarchopoulos or Brie Larson that year. It was just Streep doing her usual gimmick, she's the new Johnny Depp. It's boring at this point.What nominations u think Streep didn't deserve and who would you have put instead of her in those years?
How? On the contrary... it says more things about the performance usually.Allstar wrote:It shows a favoritism in my book.RIFA wrote:So because it's rare it's negative? What?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand with that I end it right here. It's your opinion on Streep's performances. Have you actually seen Osage County? I totally disagree.Like lol @ August Osage County being nominated over Exarchopoulos or Brie Larson that year. It was just Streep doing her usual gimmick.
The favoritism thing however makes no sense. I mean you may have favoritism at the Oscars but to spot it based on the quality of the movie one is nominated for is ridiculous.
EDIT: Let me paint you a picture of why Streep was nominated regardless of who you think deserved it more. Osage County is an okay movie right? There's nothing impressive about it in terms of writing or directing. But there is something impressive there because that movie without Streep and Roberts would have been a total borefest. They carried that movie through their performances. When you succeed in carrying a whole mediocre movie on your back because you gave a hell of a performance then you are in discussion for a nod no matter who you are. The same can be said about Jennifer Lawrence and Winter's Bone. Was there favoritism as well?