TAG-TEAM REVIEW: EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE

Would have been on-board with most of this if it was a little less neat. For one, Tom Hanks' character might as well wear a halo.

One of those awards season films NO ONE will sit through a second time. Ever.

You guys were way too easy on this movie.   Best unintentional comedy since Neil LaBute's "Wicker Man".

I have to admit that every single time the kid collapses on the floor after his dad bites it during the TV spots, I burst into laughter.  It looks like stage acting. 

And that poster gives me the damn creeps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

I have to admit that every single time the kid collapses on the floor after his dad bites it during the TV spots, I burst into laughter.  It looks like stage acting. 

 

And that poster gives me the damn creeps.

Oh it's bad.   It's easily the most tasteless movie about 9/11 you can think of.   Did you know there are 4 shots of Tom Hanks falling to his death from the Twin Towers in this?

And that collapsing to his knees shot is hilarious even in context.   It's incredibly bad.   This is not even close to being a mediocre movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamotv 
  Did you know there are 4 shots of Tom Hanks falling to his death from the Twin Towers in this?

 

I read this in the Oscar thread and I was genuinely shocked.  I need a description of these shots to truly digest this.  Is it a close-up, or is faraway?  What is the expression on his face?

Yeah I guess it should be here....

This is easily the worst film the Academy has ever nominated for Best Picture.   I honestly don't think anyone has actually seen the movie.   They just saw Hanks, Bullock, and 9/11 and nominated sight unseen.   I'm trying my level best not to oversell this but it truly is horrid stuff.

Why does everyone keep insisting Christopher Plummer is going to win Best Supporting Actor for this?

I remember when Ruby Dee was nominated for "American Gangster" a few years ago, CHUD called it the "Oh shit, you're dying soon!" nomination. Made sense since she was in the movie for like 15 minutes and only had one scene where she showed any emotion, instead of just saying perfunctory minor character lines.

Not that someone needs to have a lot of screen time to deserve a nomination (i.e. Meryl Streep in "Kramer vs. Kramer"), but Ruby was so clearly just given a sympathy nomination. I love Plummer and like Max Von Sydow a lot too, but both of their nominations just sound like a Ruby Dee situation to me.

I still can't believe Plummer was never even nominated before until 2009. It's tradition for the Academy to ignore amazing, iconic work that actors do in their prime, then nominate them when they're old for something respectable, but far from stellar.

Plummer is pretty fucking awesome in Beginners, and he's got plenty of screentime. The movie's merely okay, bu his Supporting nod is well deserved. Sydow you can argue more, because as fun as he manages to be, it's still a performance tainted by the affected, gimmicky bullshit the script forces onto him.

Yeah but out of Plummer and Von Sydow, which ones nearer deaths door?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

And that poster gives me the damn creeps.

It's all over every bus shelter and billboard in L.A. The twerp is so Photoshopped, he looks like something out of "The Polar Express" or a wax museum.

The failure of the movie hinges almost entirely on the kid.   The script is bad too but the film needed a Christian Bale calibre child actor to carry this and the kid the filmmakers found on Jeopardy isn't him.   The comparison is apt because in Empire of the Sun, Bale's character isn't the most likable but he knew how to make you care about his journey.   Jeopardy kid doesn't have that same talent.   It's sitcom kid acting the entire way.

I could've sworn Plummer was nominated for The Insider. That sucks.

As for this film, I'll wait for cable.