Serious question. Why it didn't win the Oscar for best picture?

Serious question. Why it didn't win the Oscar for best picture?

Because Spotlight was a historical drama about a riveting issue.

cuz it sucked ass

>Because Spotlight was a historical drama about evil Catholic pedophiles and the Academy is run by Jews

FTFY

Wasn't that good.

But who cares, oscars have been meaningless for decades.

This. Making a sliw ass movie doesn't make it good. Not only was it too slow, and could have at least 30 minutes cut out of it but a bunch of shit just doesn't make sense or lines up way too perfectly to be taken seriously.

My biggest problem with it was how every scene leo would just walk into freezig cold water, then just walk out like no big deal.. that nigga would have frozen to death.

I also don't really get why they base this on a true story, but add a bunch of shit that make it worse. If it was just about a guy that got attacked by a bear, got his gun stolen and follows the guy to get back his gun it would have been great.

The more important question is why Tom Hardy didn't win best supporting actor when he was far and away the best part of the movie.

Also, his character did nothing wrong.

Because the Academy wanted to push their Catholic pedophile agenda. Meanwhile, Hollywood is run by pedophiles.

Spotlight one of the worst Best Pictures of all time. If not The Revenant, why not The Big Short for BP? It ticked off all the same check boxes as Spotlight, but was far better in every way.

I didn't love Big Short, but I'd rather have that than dull as Hell Spotlight.

The Big Short was such a fucking garbage movie I do not understand the praise. Probably once of the worst movies I have seen in years, Bale was the sole redeeming factor.

I didn't love the Revenant but it's infinitely better than Big Short. Didn't watch Spotlight.

because Di Caprio is too bad at acting
seriously

I don't think it was too slow. If anything, I would've liked it to drag some scenes out even more.
>My biggest problem with it was how every scene leo would just walk into freezig cold water, then just walk out like no big deal.. that nigga would have frozen to death.
Now this is completely untrue. You(and most people living today, especially in the West) are completely pussified. You have no idea how much humans could withstand even a few hundred years ago, when their lifestyle was something compared to which ours is -incredibly- fucking unnatural.
>I also don't really get why they base this on a true story, but add a bunch of shit that make it worse. If it was just about a guy that got attacked by a bear, got his gun stolen and follows the guy to get back his gun it would have been great.
I entirely agree with this. The film could've just been a survival story, with no revenge subplot. Oh well.

>I hate slow movies, this movies sucks because lol it is slow
>lol he would have frozen to death, movie sucks because it is SO unrealistic omfg
>it sucks because it is not a simple story about surviving in a forest lol, character development and layered subplots are stupid

The UHD BLu-Ray is GOAT

>lol he would have frozen to death, movie sucks because it is SO unrealistic omfg
The thing is that it's not unrealistic in the slightest.

not more than Spotlight

Bear moved way too fast to be realistic. Critical flaw.

What? Bears are capable of incredible speed.

Sorry the movie didn't have quips and explosions and pop culture references like you're used to, you sugar-addled crackhead.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the pacing of this movie.

i didnt like the revenant, it insists upon itself

>character development and layered subplots are stupid

oh just fuck off. bane = evil leo = good. cue 2 hours of slobbering and bane voice and the most boring fucking revenge story ever.

But it doesn't really say anything. It's a thriller, not real cinema.

I am not meming when I say that Mad Max literally deserved all it's Oscars and should have bagged Miler Best Director and Best Picture.

Kino gets thrown around a lot here but The Revenant was genuinely pure kino in terms of visuals.
Dicaprio deserved his oscar
Hardy should have got one too

/thread

>

And again here we have a professional bear expert that happens to post on Sup Forums in their free time.

Ofcourse you know better than the whole team Inarittu assigned just to analyze all the available footage of bear attacks and movements in general.
They had a budget of 135 million but they did the bear attack in one afternoon with Inarittu seeing the first render with one eye and saying "that's good" right?
Those people know nothing about bears, I watched national geographic my whole life and saw one at a zoo they are nothing like it right?

fucking grow up.
I bet you were an fast rotational supermassive blackhole expert here on Sup Forums too when Interstellar came out.

It felt like it was trying too hard to impress me.

Those spiritual cut-aways were so meaningless and hackey, Di Caprio isn't actually a great actor, the story is too simple to really think about. Yeah the set-pieces are technically amazing and really pull you along, but that just makes a good, fun movie, not a Best Picture.

it's a boring revenge story and the only good scene was the bear rape...

...

>It felt like it was trying too hard to impress me
On the contrary, I felt like it wasn't trying hard enough. What you probably mean is it didn't succeed in being impressive(to you), therefore you saw the attempts for what they are- attempts to impress, which in one way or another, is what cinema is all about.
>Those spiritual cut-aways were so meaningless and hackey
I don't think they were supposed to be deep and meaningful, why do you assume that? He was dreaming of his dead wife. What you perceive as the film trying to appear deep was, I think, Innaritu's admittedly rather poor attempts at creating a dreamlike atmosphere. I did like the shot where his wife is levitating above him, that was very well done in terms of dreamlike imagery, unfortunately the rest of it wasn't.
>Di Caprio isn't actually a great actor
He is a very good actor, one of the best A-listers working today. Not the BESTEST EVER, sure, but he's good.
>the story is too simple to really think about
This is not a criticism. I think the plot was too convoluted, actually. I think it would've made a better film if it was stripped down almost entirely to a simple struggle-for-survival story with relevant dialogue and dream scenes interspliced in between the "here-and-now".
>Best Picture
The Oscars aren't deserving of the prestige they get. It most certainly deserved a Best Picture Oscar, but that's not saying much of the film's quality.

It was so fucking boring, and I'm easily entertained. Literally nothing happens after he gets fucked by Sir Bearington, you just watch Leo for hours on end going through snowy mountains in a state of near-death. It wasn't bland or bad, just so uninteresting that I couldn't keep my attention.

This. I literally won $800 on this because I saw it coming.

hah triggert

Worse than Titanic?

I'm sorry you didn't understand the movie.

Titanic is a good movie.

>posts trying to ignite serious discussion of the film are ignored
>thread turns into shitposts and memes
every time.

Since it really wasn't that good of a film. Nicely shot, One good acting performance (Which was not Leo) doesn't make a best picture.

Spotlight had the best ensemble acting (they were playing real life people and where mimicking them brilliantly) and it was a ode to something that doesn't exist anymore (newspapers with a budget)

It was better then Argo, The Artist, Crash, and Chicago. And that just from the last 15 years.

fedora.jpg

I'm convinced that Sup Forums is just filled with 15-17 year olds now

>now

>(they were playing real life people and where mimicking them brilliantly)
That's what you consider good acting?

On a serious note though, hats off to how much effort went into the Revenant

The Revenant is simply the representation of the artistic bankruptcy plaguing the contemporary film industry.

Like Birdman, Iñárritu's last endeavor in hackery, this latest attempt is to convince the masses that what they are viewing is something deep or meaningful, when all it has done is push forward shallow technicality and exaggeration to make the frame pulsate with vulgar loudness. Characters are mere veneers, the cinematography is pretty but so conspicuous as to be rendered aggravating and the thesis is about as overdone as DiCaprio's acting. The camera feels like it has been waiting all day for a climactic shot and the film's deliberately difficult production history is laid bare in the indulgent cinematography.

Thematic complexity and philosophical subtext take a back seat to what amounts to as basically an action movie with action stars wrapped up in the veil of arthouse. And much like Salome, what lies beneath is ultimately puerile, obscene and holding fascination only for adolescents.

Iñárritu is guilty of something far greater than simply making a bad movie. He is guilty for the crime of gestating his pretense and self-importance, forcing many others to labor over it in a misguided attempt to create art and daring to call the afterbirth a film. Perhaps instead of taking his cast and crew to the ends of the Earth in search of a better shot, the Mexican counterfeit filmmaker should have taken his juvenile and crass sensibilities to the seedy San Fernando valley. There he could have at least made a profit of filming all the money shots he wanted.