World of KJ :: View topic - United 93 Crash And Burn Thread:

xiayun wrote:

Deliverance (1972) was nominated for 3 and only 3 Oscars: Picture, Director, Editing.

xiayun wrote:

Deliverance (1972) was nominated for 3 and only 3 Oscars: Picture, Director, Editing.

loyalfromlondon wrote:

Did I hate it? Well, I didn't love it. I think all this praise is completely undeserving. And I very much believe United 93 barely qualifies for a film.

It's a theatrically released made for tv docudrama.

MikeQ. wrote:

The funny thing about this thread is that the so-called haters seem far more obsessed about this than the people who like the film. The difference between this and Crash is that Crash had a group of people who were adamant it was in and going to get recognized. With United 93, you won't find anyone saying such a thing, except for perhaps Levy. Otherwise, everyone else, even the people who really, really love the film, are entirely sceptical and have not included United 93 in their predicted Best Picture line up. Those who like the film, like me, are happy for it's recognition so far, glad it hasn't been forgotten, but we know the reality: slim chance of United 93 getting a Best Picture nod at the Oscars unless the Globes (more so Guilds) indicate strong enough support.

So, this thread isn't saying much. It definitely can't reach the Crash Bash thread levels. :tongue:

I'm in an interesting position here because I HATED Crash, and LOVED United 93, and didn't just love or hate both. Heh.

Peace,
Mike.

loyalfromlondon wrote:

Libs wrote:

Loyal, I am saddened that we are on the same page with Dreamgirls but can't agree on U93. Whoops.

You might hate Dreamgirls. :unsure:

Well, we will always have Family Stone. :console:

@ Mike

Someone needed to create a bash thread. I beat the Dreamgirls haters to the punch. :smile:

loyalfromlondon wrote:

I know Shack hates Dreamgirls. But our mutual disdain for all thing U93 bonds us. It's tough, it really is.

There are a ton of Dreamgirls haters here. There are so many things one could potentially hate:

Haters of musicals
Haters of black people (sad but true)
Haters of hype
Haters of frontrunners
Haters of Beyonce
Haters of Jamie Foxx
Haters of American Idol and/or JenHud
Haters of Motown

MikeQ. wrote:

I'm in an interesting position here because I HATED Crash, and LOVED United 93, and didn't just love or hate both. Heh.

Peace,
Mike.

loyalfromlondon wrote:

Shack wrote:

When I look at U93, I ask myself what makes this a good film? Is it the amateur acting and average screenplay? Is it the shaky cam cinematography? Is the complete lack of any narrative or plot other than the stuff we already know? Is it the fact that there are no characters or development in this film?

Greengrass has placed a camera on 9/11, and did his best to refilm the entire thing in its entirety, nothing more, nothing less. It seems the entire critical world is so wrapped up in being transported back to that day, or having their wounds ripped open, that they've completley forgot to realize what makes this a good film or not. Is 2 hours of a camera filming nameless people yelling at computers, and then nameless angry people on a plane, the best film of the year? Like loyal said, it doesn't even seem like a film, it's just a camera rolling on 9/11... like some made for tv special. Film is provided to tell narrative and stories, to get us wrapped up in characters and scenarios seperated from our own lives, and for some elaborate refilming to come along and win these accolades, I don't agree with whatsoever.

At least Crash despite it's manipulation and messages, was an entertaining film, it had good acting, it had people to care about, if you didn't look at the messages it was a good film. But United 93... it's dreck. It just isn't a good film, there's no narrative, there's no characters, the movie is just... there, and on top of that it isn't well made either in acting, screenplay, filming. What is the point of rewatching a number of people plunge to their death? It isn't enjoyable, it isn't entertaining, there's no-one to care about, I don't get it.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if U93 goes on to win Best Picture, just like Crash. fuck.

loyalfromlondon wrote:

andaroo.temp wrote:

There's part of me that wishes United 93 wouldn't be nominated so I don't have to read loyal's moronic thoughts about it any further.

This thread will never be a Crash Bash. Mine was funny, yours is just bitter.

Author:	xiayun [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Deliverance (1972) was nominated for 3 and only 3 Oscars: Picture, Director, Editing.

Author:	neo_wolf [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:09 pm ]
Post subject:
xiayun wrote: Deliverance (1972) was nominated for 3 and only 3 Oscars: Picture, Director, Editing. Nominations U93 has a good shot at.

Author:	Christian [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Four Weddings and a Funeral only received Best Picture and Best Screenplay nods.

Author:	xiayun [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:
In fact, looking deeper, it could just be like 1972 all over again: 1. Gangster movie The Godfather and the musical Cabaret lead the nominations; we have The Departed and Dreamgirls this year. 2. Utvandrarna was nominated for Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actress; The Queen fits right in. 3. Sounder was nominated for Picture, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay; switch actress out and director in, we got Letters. 4. Deliverance vs. United 93.

Author:	android [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:
Well, there's David Lynch, but Greengrass isn't Lynch, is he? I still don't believe this can be nominated either. At best, it's the 7th contender, ahead of Little Children, Half Nelson and Notes (which have zero chances) - and Little Children won in San Francisco, just like U93 won in New York. At best, it'll get Director and Editing. No acting nominees, obviously; the screenplay has a very slim chance; ditto for Cinematography... So, basically, no acting support and no technical support (only Picture and Director noms at BFCA). Not even +100 #1 spots in the critics' top 10 lists can change that. For me, it's down to these six: The Departed Dreamgirls Letters from Iwo Jima The Queen Babel Little Miss Sunshine The first 3 are absolute locks, and the other 3 are right behind. It just isn't Crash 2...

World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

United 93 Crash And Burn Thread: http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25817	Page 1 of 3

Author:	android [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:
xiayun wrote: Deliverance (1972) was nominated for 3 and only 3 Oscars: Picture, Director, Editing. Hmm... but that one had known actors, at least. Actors with reasonable shots at Oscar noms. (EDIT: Voight got a Globe nom - just checked it ) It's slighty different. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'll be here to admit it. EDIT2: If U93 manages 5 GG nominations Thursday, I'll reconsider its chances...

Author:	android [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:31 pm ]
Post subject:
Oh, and I just want to add that I'm being completely unbiased here, since I haven't even seen the film.

Author:	Mister Ecks [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:
I liked United 93, but I'm hoping against a Best Picture nod as well (although I'm certain Loyal actually hates the movie). I appreciate a movie like Little Miss Sunshine or Children of Men more. United 93 is easy. You write a good movie about 9/11, and watch the nominations flow in. If it's nominated, I won't bitch about it like Loyal inevitably will, but I won't be happy if it gets in over Children of Men (a good possibility, sadly).

Author:	Alex Y. [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:
If United 93 gets a bunch of nominations tomorrow, people will celebrate like it's almost a lock. If United 93 gets snubbed tomorrow, people will point to last year's results as the inaccuracy of the Globes. The only way United 93 gets into best picture is if it gets a bunch of guilds nominations to indicate that there is actually support among actors, directors, writers, tech groups etc.

Author:	neo_wolf [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:
I found U93 to be a good but not great film, but i would rather this be the 9/11 film nominated than that boring piece of shit WTC.

Author:	Mister Ecks [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:
loyalfromlondon wrote: Did I hate it? Well, I didn't love it. I think all this praise is completely undeserving. And I very much believe United 93 barely qualifies for a film. It's a theatrically released made for tv docudrama. I won't disagree with that. But, I most definitely agree with neo_wolf. If a 9/11 movie is getting a nomination, it should be United 93, not World Trade Center.

Author:	Raffiki [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:
WTC was so unnecessary. Technically speaking the movie wasn't bad but I just thought it was horrible. The only really great thing about the movie was Maggie Gylenhaal and Maria Bello

Author:	Shack [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:
When I look at U93, I ask myself what makes this a good film? Is it the amateur acting and average screenplay? Is it the shaky cam cinematography? Is the complete lack of any narrative or plot other than the stuff we already know? Is it the fact that there are no characters or development in this film? Greengrass has placed a camera on 9/11, and did his best to refilm the entire thing in its entirety, nothing more, nothing less. It seems the entire critical world is so wrapped up in being transported back to that day, or having their wounds ripped open, that they've completley forgot to realize what makes this a good film or not. Is 2 hours of a camera filming nameless people yelling at computers, and then nameless angry people on a plane, the best film of the year? Like loyal said, it doesn't even seem like a film, it's just a camera rolling on 9/11... like some made for tv special. Film is provided to tell narrative and stories, to get us wrapped up in characters and scenarios seperated from our own lives, and for some elaborate refilming to come along and win these accolades, I don't agree with whatsoever. At least Crash despite it's manipulation and messages, was an entertaining film, it had good acting, it had people to care about, if you didn't look at the messages it was a good film. But United 93... it's dreck. It just isn't a good film, there's no narrative, there's no characters, the movie is just... there, and on top of that it isn't well made either in acting, screenplay, filming. What is the point of rewatching a number of people plunge to their death? It isn't enjoyable, it isn't entertaining, there's no-one to care about, I don't get it. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if U93 goes on to win Best Picture, just like Crash. fuck.

Author:	Libs [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:
Loyal, I am saddened that we are on the same page with Dreamgirls but can't agree on U93. Whoops.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	MikeQ. [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:16 pm ]
Post subject:
The funny thing about this thread is that the so-called haters seem far more obsessed about this than the people who like the film. The difference between this and Crash is that Crash had a group of people who were adamant it was in and going to get recognized. With United 93, you won't find anyone saying such a thing, except for perhaps Levy. Otherwise, everyone else, even the people who really, really love the film, are entirely sceptical and have not included United 93 in their predicted Best Picture line up. Those who like the film, like me, are happy for it's recognition so far, glad it hasn't been forgotten, but we know the reality: slim chance of United 93 getting a Best Picture nod at the Oscars unless the Globes (more so Guilds) indicate strong enough support. So, this thread isn't saying much. It definitely can't reach the Crash Bash thread levels. I'm in an interesting position here because I HATED Crash, and LOVED United 93, and didn't just love or hate both. Heh. Peace, Mike.

Author:	Libs [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:
MikeQ. wrote: The funny thing about this thread is that the so-called haters seem far more obsessed about this than the people who like the film. The difference between this and Crash is that Crash had a group of people who were adamant it was in and going to get recognized. With United 93, you won't find anyone saying such a thing, except for perhaps Levy. Otherwise, everyone else, even the people who really, really love the film, are entirely sceptical and have not included United 93 in their predicted Best Picture line up. Those who like the film, like me, are happy for it's recognition so far, glad it hasn't been forgotten, but we know the reality: slim chance of United 93 getting a Best Picture nod at the Oscars unless the Globes (more so Guilds) indicate strong enough support. So, this thread isn't saying much. It definitely can't reach the Crash Bash thread levels. I'm in an interesting position here because I HATED Crash, and LOVED United 93, and didn't just love or hate both. Heh. Peace, Mike. I loved Crash (#2 of 2005) and United 93 (currently #1 of 2006), but I refooze to let the hay-tahs get me down and make me feel like a sheep. Suckkkkkkk it

Author:	MikeQ. [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:
loyalfromlondon wrote: Libs wrote: Loyal, I am saddened that we are on the same page with Dreamgirls but can't agree on U93. Whoops. You might hate Dreamgirls. Well, we will always have Family Stone. @ Mike Someone needed to create a bash thread. I beat the Dreamgirls haters to the punch. Are there Dreamgirls haters on here? Really? I like Dreamgirls, and it's because of the actresses, especially Hudson. For one, I'm very happy (and so bloody impressed) that Jennifer Hudson came from being an American Idol contestant to producing a potentially Oscar winning role in a film. That's very cool (unlike most people here, I actually like American Idol). I hope she wins the Oscar; I still have a horrible feeling that Hudson will be snubbed because she doesn't have the history or the pedigree. (Oh yeah, I just remembered Shack, who's been cheering every time Dreamgirls loses. Loyal, you should kick Shack out of your United 93 bashing club, because he also hates Dreamgirls! He's a traitor.) Peace, Mike.

Author:	Levy [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:
loyalfromlondon wrote: I know Shack hates Dreamgirls. But our mutual disdain for all thing U93 bonds us. It's tough, it really is. There are a ton of Dreamgirls haters here. There are so many things one could potentially hate: Haters of musicals Haters of black people (sad but true) Haters of hype Haters of frontrunners Haters of Beyonce Haters of Jamie Foxx Haters of American Idol and/or JenHud Haters of Motown You forgot the main problem of the movie Haters of sung dialogue. It is so god-awful, I felt ashamed in my seat when it happened. The movie was on such a good way with its musical numbers limited to the stage, but when they started to sing their dialogue...

Author:	Levy [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:
MikeQ. wrote: The funny thing about this thread is that the so-called haters seem far more obsessed about this than the people who like the film. The difference between this and Crash is that Crash had a group of people who were adamant it was in and going to get recognized. With United 93, you won't find anyone saying such a thing, except for perhaps Levy. Otherwise, everyone else, even the people who really, really love the film, are entirely sceptical and have not included United 93 in their predicted Best Picture line up. Those who like the film, like me, are happy for it's recognition so far, glad it hasn't been forgotten, but we know the reality: slim chance of United 93 getting a Best Picture nod at the Oscars unless the Globes (more so Guilds) indicate strong enough support. So, this thread isn't saying much. It definitely can't reach the Crash Bash thread levels. I'm in an interesting position here because I HATED Crash, and LOVED United 93, and didn't just love or hate both. Heh. Peace, Mike. What can I say, I'm a believer. Call me naive, but I can't imagine that in the year when 9/11 became a valid topic for movies, they wouls shut out the movie that mastered it

Author:	bABA [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:43 pm ]
Post subject:
loyalfromlondon wrote: I know Shack hates Dreamgirls. But our mutual disdain for all thing U93 bonds us. It's tough, it really is. There are a ton of Dreamgirls haters here. There are so many things one could potentially hate: Haters of musicals Haters of black people (sad but true) Haters of hype Haters of frontrunners Haters of Beyonce Haters of Jamie Foxx Haters of American Idol and/or JenHud Haters of Motown Haters of hypocritical films too ... don't forget those

Author:	Dkmuto [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:
Shack wrote: When I look at U93, I ask myself what makes this a good film? Is it the amateur acting and average screenplay? Is it the shaky cam cinematography? Is the complete lack of any narrative or plot other than the stuff we already know? Is it the fact that there are no characters or development in this film? Greengrass has placed a camera on 9/11, and did his best to refilm the entire thing in its entirety, nothing more, nothing less. It seems the entire critical world is so wrapped up in being transported back to that day, or having their wounds ripped open, that they've completley forgot to realize what makes this a good film or not. Is 2 hours of a camera filming nameless people yelling at computers, and then nameless angry people on a plane, the best film of the year? Like loyal said, it doesn't even seem like a film, it's just a camera rolling on 9/11... like some made for tv special. Film is provided to tell narrative and stories, to get us wrapped up in characters and scenarios seperated from our own lives, and for some elaborate refilming to come along and win these accolades, I don't agree with whatsoever. At least Crash despite it's manipulation and messages, was an entertaining film, it had good acting, it had people to care about, if you didn't look at the messages it was a good film. But United 93... it's dreck. It just isn't a good film, there's no narrative, there's no characters, the movie is just... there, and on top of that it isn't well made either in acting, screenplay, filming. What is the point of rewatching a number of people plunge to their death? It isn't enjoyable, it isn't entertaining, there's no-one to care about, I don't get it. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if U93 goes on to win Best Picture, just like Crash. fuck. Your basic argument that this film lacks substance really comes down to those statements. If you want to condense the narrative, which you find to be lacking, into "yelling" and "angry people," then yes, you probably won't get much out of this film.

Author:	Dkmuto [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:02 pm ]
Post subject:
As for my thoughts on its Oscar chances... Like Mike said, I think of the 6 films (excluding Babel, which I think is safe to do) that are in contention, U93 is on the most tenuous ground right now. I think if it does well at the Globes noms it'll be a safer pick than LMS, but right now, as much as I hate to say it, probably not.

Author:	Shack [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:
loyalfromlondon wrote: I know Shack hates Dreamgirls. But our mutual disdain for all thing U93 bonds us. It's tough, it really is. There are a ton of Dreamgirls haters here. There are so many things one could potentially hate: Haters of musicals Haters of black people (sad but true) Haters of hype Haters of frontrunners Haters of Beyonce Haters of Jamie Foxx Haters of American Idol and/or JenHud Haters of Motown I'm kind of backed into a corner this season, I don't want United 93, Dreamgirls, or another Oscar to Eastwood for Letters from Iwo Jima. In reality I guess Dreamgirls would be the lesser of the 3 evils, I would happy to see it triumph over United 93 or Letters if it came down to it. Departed and Little Miss Sunshine are my sanctions this season though.

Author:	roo [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:49 pm ]
Post subject:
There's part of me that wishes United 93 wouldn't be nominated so I don't have to read loyal's moronic thoughts about it any further. This thread will never be a Crash Bash. Mine was funny, yours is just bitter.

Author:	Dkmuto [ Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:
andaroo.temp wrote: There's part of me that wishes United 93 wouldn't be nominated so I don't have to read loyal's moronic thoughts about it any further. This thread will never be a Crash Bash. Mine was funny, yours is just bitter. Woooooooo!