Parasite wins Best Picture

[Alphaz 7,969]

13 hours ago, xoxo Craig said:

Never heard of it, never seen it, don't know what its about    but congrats to it

It's about K-POP 

[Jose P 23,341]

3 hours ago, M Monstre said:

Take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt because I actually haven't seen 1917, but I feel like it's just like any other war movie...

To be completely honest, the only reason why it's doing so well is because it was the last big movie to be released for this award's season. Had it come out in October or November, I doubt it would be doing as good as it has been doing. 

Parasite is a movie that will stand the test of time. 

Since you haven’t seen 1917 I’ll tell you it really isn’t like any other war movie. The way it’s shot gives you an immersive experience and provides tension and a strong atmosphere, and the cinematography is just off the charts. The acting, writing, and pacing are also phenomenal. So I do think the nominations and accolades are deserved. It’s pretty much an overall incredibly well done film and the viewing experience is incredible. 

But yes, Parasite is more original and better. 1917 is second best in this case.

[REALITY 78,380]

5 minutes ago, Jose P said:

Since you haven’t seen 1917 I’ll tell you it really isn’t like any other war movie. The way it’s shot gives you an immersive experience and provides tension and a strong atmosphere, and the cinematography is just off the charts. The acting, writing, and pacing are also phenomenal. So I do think the nominations and accolades are deserved. It’s pretty much an overall incredibly well done film and the viewing experience is incredible. 

But yes, Parasite is more original and better. 1917 is second best in this case.

Well, I do definitely think it deserves the cinematography win. If any film should've won, it's 1917.

That said, everything else just seems like standard stuff that should make a great movie great. Let me be clear, I think that it probably deserves the Best Picture nomination, but are the acting, writing, and pacing better than a movie like Little Women? I know that they're two completely  different films, but if I'm just looking at something like the RT score for both of them, Little Women scored higher for both the critics and the audience.

I did see Little Women, and I thought it was great. The acting, writing, and pacing were also all great too. I'm not saying that 1917 is bad or that it doesn't deserve the recognition it deserves, but I also think that its release date definitely influenced voters. It was most likely the most recent thing they watched, so of course it's going to be fresh in their brains for them to give it nominations and wins.

[RAMROD 112,203]

8 minutes ago, Jose P said:

Since you haven’t seen 1917 I’ll tell you it really isn’t like any other war movie. The way it’s shot gives you an immersive experience and provides tension and a strong atmosphere, and the cinematography is just off the charts. The acting, writing, and pacing are also phenomenal. So I do think the nominations and accolades are deserved. It’s pretty much an overall incredibly well done film and the viewing experience is incredible. 

But yes, Parasite is more original and better. 1917 is second best in this case.

 

3 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

Well, I do definitely think it deserves the cinematography win. If any film should've won, it's 1917.

That said, everything else just seems like standard stuff that should make a great movie great. Let me be clear, I think that it probably deserves the Best Picture nomination, but are the acting, writing, and pacing better than a movie like Little Women? I know that they're two completely  different films, but if I'm just looking at something like the RT score for both of them, Little Women scored higher for both the critics and the audience.

I did see Little Women, and I thought it was great. The acting, writing, and pacing were also all great too. I'm not saying that 1917 is bad or that it doesn't deserve the recognition it deserves, but I also think that its release date definitely influenced voters. It was most likely the most recent thing they watched, so of course it's going to be fresh in their brains for them to give it nominations and wins.

 

1917 shouldn't win Best Picture, so I am glad it doesn't. The categories it won at are deserved cos that is where 1917 shines. The ot are flat, and the acting were poor. It feels like watching those live stream shooting games like Medal Of Honor and the likes on Twitch by any gamers. Just the way Joker deservedly only won Best Actor because Joaquin IS the whole movie. 

Although Joker and Parasite are offering the similiar theme, Parasite was more layered than Joker that only focusing on one  spectrum of issues.

Honestly, many of this year Oscars winners are deserving their victory. Except for Best Actress, which should go to  Scarlett Johansson. But that's just me.

[REALITY 78,380]

7 minutes ago, RAMROD said:

1917 shouldn't win Best Picture, so I am glad it doesn't. The categories it won at are deserved cos that is where 1917 shines. The ot are flat, and the acting were poor. It feels like watching those live stream shooting games like Medal Of Honor and the likes on Twitch by any gamers. Just the way Joker deservedly only won Best Actor because Joaquin IS the whole movie. 

Although Joker and Parasite are offering the similiar theme, Parasite was more layered than Joker that only focusing on one  spectrum of issues.

Honestly, many of this year Oscars winners are deserving their victory. Except for Best Actress, which should go to  Scarlett Johansson. But that's just me.

I literally agree with everything you said (except for the specifics about 1917, but that's because I haven't seen the film).

Joker was definitely up there for one of my favorite movies of 2019, but I agree, Joaquin Phoenix's win was what that movie totally deserved. Even comparing Joaquin's performance to Adam Driver (who was sort of the runner up for Best Actor), Adam's performance is an even 50/50 split with ScarJo. Joaquin's performance in Joker was probably a good 70% of what made that movie as good as it was. 

Even if it kept the same script, same director, same score, etc., the movie would've been totally different had Joaquin not played Arthur.

Parasite though, was just an overall excellent film. It, like Joker, dealed with the growing class divide, but even then, you could reasonably argue that Parasite did it better; it was certainly much more layered than Joker.

[Lumi 3,512]

3 hours ago, M Monstre said:

Take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt because I actually haven't seen 1917, but I feel like it's just like any other war movie...

To be completely honest, the only reason why it's doing so well is because it was the last big movie to be released for this award's season. Had it come out in October or November, I doubt it would be doing as good as it has been doing. 

Parasite is a movie that will stand the test of time. 

You are wrong with 1917. I not a fan of war movies at all, but there's something different with this one. Go and see it, trust me. Some of its shots are one of the best things I've ever seen in a movie.

[Jose P 23,341]

14 minutes ago, Lumi said:

You are wrong with 1917. I not a fan of war movies at all, but there's something different with this one. Go and see it, trust me. Some of its shots are one of the best things I've ever seen in a movie.

That night scene in the ruins with the flares going off 

[Lumi 3,512]

7 minutes ago, Jose P said:

That night scene in the ruins with the flares going off 

My mouth was open the whole time. One of the most beautiful things i've seen. 

[Galagala 4,619]

8 hours ago, M Monstre said:

Take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt because I actually haven't seen 1917, but I feel like it's just like any other war movie...

To be completely honest, the only reason why it's doing so well is because it was the last big movie to be released for this award's season. Had it come out in October or November, I doubt it would be doing as good as it has been doing. 

Parasite is a movie that will stand the test of time. 

You haven't seen it and you're here to judge. I feel so sorry for you fake people.

[SchwineLove 1,375]

7 hours ago, Jose P said:

Since you haven’t seen 1917 I’ll tell you it really isn’t like any other war movie. The way it’s shot gives you an immersive experience and provides tension and a strong atmosphere, and the cinematography is just off the charts. The acting, writing, and pacing are also phenomenal. So I do think the nominations and accolades are deserved. It’s pretty much an overall incredibly well done film and the viewing experience is incredible. 

But yes, Parasite is more original and better. 1917 is second best in this case.

How do you compare 1917 to Dunkirik? Because honestly with all the "sonically and panoramically realistic hype", Dunkirk snooze the hell of me, since that I will never watch war movie again. It stressed me a lot.

[REALITY 78,380]

8 hours ago, Galagala said:

You haven't seen it and you're here to judge. I feel so sorry for you fake people.

Go back up and read my responses to other comments. I’m not saying that it’s a bad film. How would I know? I haven’t seen it.

What I’m saying is that its release date influenced how voters think of the film. Hell, Little Women has a better Rotten Tomatoes score from both critics AND audiences. If 1917 is as good as people say it is, wouldn’t you at least expect a higher RT score? I watched Little Women, and I thought it was great. It deserved the Best Picture nom, but just going based off its RT score, it would’ve been more deserving than 1917.

Because 1917 was the last big movie to release, it’s fresh in voters minds. That’s all I’m saying. Comprehend my words before you quote me.

[Twitter 14]

Disappointed but no surprised.