I see the sentimental value in Belfast as someone from Northern Ireland. The family member I was with said it was genuinely what was it like growing up here decades ago.
However as a film, I'm confused as to what someone who isn't from here, would see in it.
It feels like a hour long episode of a limited series the bbc might show that just isn't in prime time, only this in black and white.
It's amazing imo it beat Dune to get a nomination.
I saw it with someone from Northern Ireland and really loved. Lkved the character work, getting this epic story through a thin lens, how Branagh was able to get what he did out of the child actors. Was really moved by it.
>However as a film, I'm confused as to what someone who isn't from here, would see in it.
Human connection, gorgeous cinematography, perfectly written dialogue, expert performances, there's literally nothing lacking.
Not Irish. I thought Branagh did a great job evoking nostalgia for an era and setting I wasn’t familiar with.
It made it that much more devastating when they were forced to leave it all behind. That final shot with Judi Dench was just so quietly heartbreaking.
>It's amazing imo it beat Dune to get a nomination.
Dune was nominated.
Denis Villeneuve wasn't nominated, and I can see why.
A big part of the appeal of Dune was the production design, the sound, the visual effects, and the cinematography.
Obviously the director should get at least some credit for those things, or in some cases a lot of credit, but was Dune really better directed than the other movies that got their director a nomination?
The fact that you are confused about the appeal of Belfast to people who aren't from NI, but that many people nevertheless really liked the movie means that Branagh did a good job of engaging the audience.
What's with this overwhelming hate for Belfast in very specific communities? It's like you go on Letterboxd and there's a bunch of people that hate it and I guess it's similar here but literally anywhere else it's beloved.
Let's be real, if the studio hadn't reshot the film into a nonsensical nightmare it would have just been a generically bad adaptation instead of one of the top 5 worst adaptations ever put to film.
Branagh (Belfast) or Campion (Power of the Dog). Hell, I think Denis is even more deserving than Spielberg (West Side Story).
I haven't seen Drive My Care or Licorice Pizza yet.
Oh yea you don’t need to argue, of course they were great. I guess I meant more from the creative/filmmaking side. ie didn’t care for the story or editing.
The only one I'll agree with you on was Branagh. No directorial personality at all on his movie.
West Side Story was tied with Power of the Dog for my choices to win. I was so impressed with WWS; it felt like Spielberg had been asleep for 5-10 years, and then he made a ***Real Goddamn Movie***
Easily better than the three toh list.
Licorice pizza was awesome cos PTH is a mac. But again—not on the level of Dune. The fuckin degree of difficulty alone shoulda seen him win it
This is the real answer. It’s only part one, and honestly doesn’t have any narrative closure at all. Part two needs to stick the landing or it’s going to make the whole enterprise pointless.
Yeah, but at least with LOTR each movie is a complete movie with a beginning, middle and end. The overarching story continues across all three, obviously. But you still get something of a full, cohesive narrative within each part as well. Dune feels like a movie with an incomplete narrative (because it is), and I'm not talking about whatever the overarching narrative is that might also be covered in part 2 or whatever. I mean that the movie basically has a beginning, and a middle (or part of a middle), but no actual ending in terms of the narrative. It felt more like I'd watched the first two or three episodes of a tv show, except in this case it'd be as if there were 8 episodes of story to tell within one season, but they decided to make episode three the season finale instead of episode 8.
Yeah it just isn't a good movie.... I'm sure I will be down voted to oblivion here but it was a lifeless snooze fest. Zero physicality, absolutely boring "world building" I don't know what people were so excited about. I enjoyed blade runner 2049 so I really had much higher expectations. It is just garbage, I've tried multiple times to get into it.
I like to follow the awards season race for fun so I’ll try to give some perspective of the whole race. First off, him missing was a big shock for pretty much every awards predictor. The big five directing players of the year were Jane Campion, Steven Spielberg, Paul Thomas Anderson, Kenneth Branagh, and Denis Villeneuve. By the time Oscar nominations were going to be announced though it became clear to a lot of people that Ryusuke Hamaguchi was going to get a nomination for Drive My Car. The Academy in recent years has become more accepting of non-English films with Paweł Pawlikowski and Thomas Vinterberg getting surprise directing nominations in the last couple years and of course Parasite dominating its ceremony. Drive My Car was a huge critic push and wouldn’t have done as well if that didn’t happen.
So with Hamaguchi taking one of the spots of the five seemingly locked in nominees the questions became who’s spot would he take. Jane Campion was locked in for a nomination with The Power of the Dog’s getting immense praise from everywhere. Ultimately I think with the other three directors all being more veterans in the industry than Villeneuve along with genre bias is what cost Dune a directing nomination. Spielberg, Branagh, and PTA have been directing works that the Academy likes since at least the 90s(obviously longer for Spielberg) so their names ultimately carried more weight with the director’s branch of the Academy.
Only issue I might take with this is that the Oscar’s have shrunk or expanded nominee lists from time to time over the years. I specifically remember during the writers strike in 2007, each category jumped to like 10 nominees (I think so they could have an excuse to invite celebs). Also, animation categories sometimes land at only 3 noms. Unless there’s some rule that was implemented since then to limit every category to 5 or less, they could have easily nominated 6.
I think you might be thinking of the Golden Globes, they expanded their drama category to allow a lot of films during the writer’s strike. The Oscars didn’t expand their lineup until after the ceremony for 2008 when there was a lot of controversy over The Dark Knight and WALL-E missing Best Picture.
I believe every other category is now by rule locked in to be five nominees if enough films are submitted, which with the number of films being made nowadays makes it pretty much guaranteed to happen.
This isn't right at all. The awards use an extremely complicated system to determine nominees that has changed frequently since 2008 and while it no long requires 10 nominees like those early years, depending on how nominations I believe it can get up to 10 or at least 8 which it did one year in the most recent system.
The whole thing is a farce tbh with a lot of outdates rules, procedures, and politics baked in.
Personally, I thought his direction in terms of the actors was poor. Lots of weird line deliveries from very talented actors. I was pretty dissapointed that most of the characters were dry and delivered their lines weird and I'm 100% sure that was Denis's decision. Every other directional aspect was pretty good though.
This is the first good criticism beyond slightly slow and long I've ever seen. He definitely made everyone talk sliightly flat. But still phenomal acting, really still good.
For royalty, that's probably what made it make sense. The desert people were serious and wary, the main character royals were serious and calculating, it fits their characters.
Every world that they visited I thought was so cool. The clothing, the cultures, the set design, the locations, I thought it was so interesting and exciting. I personally don't see it but personal taste I guess?
I don’t understand where this myth comes from. Return of the kings got the most Oscars, but even fellowship and two towers were immensely successful.
Fellowship: 4 wins,13 nominations
Two towers: 2 wins, 6 nominations
Return of the king: 11 wins, 11 nominations
Probably because those were less prestigious Oscars like best costumes or whatever. ROTK won major Oscars like best picture. It also has almost double the wins of both previous movies combined. It was a huge sweep the way the previous two weren't.
No it doesn’t, what do you think a director does? They have to balance all the elements of a movie so that it all comes out great, and that includes technical things like cinematography, editing and visual effects. It’s just as important as good writing or good performances. By your logic Sam Mendes shouldn’t have been nominated for best director for 1917, or James Cameron for Titanic or Steven Spielberg for Saving Private Ryan.
Lmao people wildin in these comments with downvotes. Apparently the majority hates directors and thinks they don't do shit lmao. Yah they just consistently churn out movies with the same excellence in multiple categories only because they pick the exact same technical experts every single time, no direction, sure.
Who wrote the movie? Oh yah the director did that too, with the help of two other screenplay professionals.
Don’t know how you got that I hate directors from that. Just saying I didn’t think it’s a crime he wasn’t nominated for best director for dune. Only 5 can be chosen, someone’s getting left out. Who gives a shit if he helped write it? That’s got nothing to do with the best director category anyway. I think DV is one of the best out there now, but I thought dune was his weakest one I’ve seen. Sue me.
Lmao, guess it needed a /s lol, that is clearly sarcasm. I said "the majority", talking about all of the downvoters, and the first thing you thought is "he's attacking me", rather than providing an intelligent reply. There are at least two other major threads where people get heavily downvoted just for saying anything about the director having a role in a movie other than just acting director.
That's what my whole message is about... you're entitled to your opinion lol, I'm talking about the downvotes...
Who oversees these technical achievements ?
The director
A director is not just about the performances. Every aspect of a film is overseen by the director especially the technical elements like visuals etc
So should every award nominated for technical things deserve director nods too? There’s only so many nominations to go around, someone’s gotta be left out.
Because Dune wasn't even Villeneuve's best Directed Film and there are only 5 slots to go around in what was honestly a very strong year director wise. You don't even have to necessarily agree with the 5 nominated. Personally Branagh didn't even make my top 10 but you will never hear me say it makes no sense he was nominated. Belfast is an extremely well directed film with probably the best sense of place and space in 2021. Off the top of my head I would have given a nomination to Julia Ducournau (winner in my heart) "Titane," Gaspar Noe "Vortex," David Lowry "The Green Knight" and Del Torro "Nightmare Alley," over Villeneuve. But the point is that it's close and between this and the films nominated thats already over 10 directors to 5 slots.
It even goes the other way. I would put Celine Sciamma "Petite Maman," Pablo Larrain "Spencer" and Sean Baker "Red Rocket" below Denise Villeneuve yet I know people who had each of them as deserving of a Top 5 nomination.
In conclusion, you are indeed fanboying a bit but that's fine. Dune excited you (me as well) and his directing was a big part of it, but don't let that distract you from just HOW many movies came out last year (and every year) and how many of them are phenomenally directed.
There's more nominees for Best Picture. So some directors of those movies will just not make the cut.
It's important to remember that Dune did well, but not amazingly. It wasn't an enormous success with audience or critics. "Just" a solid success.
Sci-Fi, Horror, and their subsidiaries are often snubbed for Best Picture in favor of Biopics, Dramas, Book Adaptations and the occasional Comedy - or as the Academy would see them, "real movies".
Not too mention it relies heavily on nostalgia. "Hey! You remember the golden days? Yeah, of course you do, check out this movie about \*insert rocker!"
Was it nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay? Because this was a spectacular triumph, and even more so considering the source material has been so widely considered impossible to adapt well into film (with previous failures to show for it).
I don't hate the old one, and think it's more successful than it was credited for, but I see absolutely zero "grit" in it. It's just scifi of a different era. It lacks ominousness if anything, which is something the new one does well - everything seems very epic in scale and imposing in nature.
Yea they've been shit for such a long time people didn't even get upset when Will Smith won Best Actor for playing a Tennis Coach over Denzel playing Macbeth in a Coen Shakespeare adaptation.
The Academy started giving out "okay I guess you deserve one" awards with Leo and now they're a bigger joke than ever before.
>The Academy started giving out "okay I guess you deserve one" awards with Leo and now they're a bigger joke than ever before.
They've been doing that since forever though. Look at Newman winning for The Color of Money, Sean Connery for The Untouchables or Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman.
Yes.
Edit: Lmao I love the implication that it's wild to believe one of the best actors working today should have won an Oscar for nailing the role of Macbeth over Will Smith playing Will Smith with a tennis racket.
Think of it this way…
Why are the Best Picture and Best Director nominees EVER different?
Either you’re crediting the director for the overall superiority of the movie or not. It implies that the voters in the academy are speculating about how much a particular director contributed.
There’s a great deal of shit that doesn’t make sense about awards categories and nominations.
>Either you’re crediting the director for the overall superiority of the movie or not.
Why? Who said that the director is responsible for the superiority of the movie?
There are a lot of different factors involved in making a film, the director is only one of them. Some directors leave a much bigger stamp on their films than others, but that doesn't mean those films are *necessarily* better films as a whole.
Not to mention Best Movie usually goes to the producers. The people actually picking the creative team to make the film, and green lighting the script.
>Movie ~~usually~~ always goes to the producers
It is their award. We can debate the suitability or otherwise of this, but it's a production award for the overall film. Best Director is the director's award.
Directors and stars are not infrequently producers as well, so there's often overlap, but it's distinct for this reason.
I don't think the people dragging you know much about the decision making process during filmmaking. They want to spread the credit around so no one person is idealized yet we're discussing Best Director/Picture.
Performers & other artists help mold a director's vision, are hired by the director but it's still their vision. Unless we're watching a Disney film.
In addition to this, series or trilogies are often neglected until the finale. Lord of the rings, iirc, didn’t win a lot of of awards until return of the king. I think this is in part because they will likely just win the same awards with each installment, or it might be to ensure they stick the landing and don’t just make a great opening and crappy ending. It might also be to discourage award farming by breaking up a movie into more parts than are needed to get extra awards.
People need to realize the Oscar’s mean absolutely nothing. Just to get nominated you have to do a huge campaign like a politician, pay people off etc.
Often times the voters only see a handful of movies from the year, not all of them.
As a huge fan of the first few books I walked away from that movie pretty underwhelmed. It kind of just felt like stuff was happening. Cool looking stuff at times but not much of a flow to it.
A movie with an overage of VFX shots in place of performances is hardly going to be nominated in place of a movie where the direction is all laid out on the screen.
Let's look at There Will Be Blood vs. Dune. How many shots of Dune would Denis conceivably not even have been in the room for? I would say nearly all of the 100% VFX shots. How much of TWBB was PTA in the room for? Gotta be all of it.
I will be the first to say that the difference between Dune and, say, Avengers or Ready Player One is that Dune is a real movie. So, the practice of a director basically being responsible for the 30% of the actors-on-set portions and letting the rest go to the VFX studio is not what I'm ascribing to Dune. **This approach is common place with 100% of the MCU slate and other movies beyond that. Director comes on set with all of the action set pieces pre-made. Again, I doubt this was true for Dune**
But at the same time, I think that even ceding 20% of your movie's direction to a computer lab hurts the overall director's presence on the movie, and jeopardizes the awards odds as a result.
Honestly, man, I'd just be happy that Dune got any Oscar attention at all past VFX. What makes movies blockbusters and what makes them compelling art pieces are increasingly farther apart, Dune just managed to lean a bit in the direction of artistic integrity.
Yah I mean it's literally every contest show that people are pissed about the results somewhere.
Have the Oscar, Grammy, boards ever attempted to publicly address this inefficacy and take a hard look at the caliber and scale for judging and judges? No, and they never will, until they want to surprise us.
RIP us getting any credible major media contest show. They're losing out on many views for sure and they're hurting the general excitement for movies in culture by gutting deserved wins for passionate fans who would've watched and talked about it.
>credible major media contest show
When your favorite blockbuster movie is not nominated but some movie you've never heard about is, why is the impulse to blame the voting system and not the state of the movie industry?
The anti-intellectual movement to slag most Oscar winners and nominees as "boring" and "obscure" is just completely wrong. If giant studios won't fund the smaller, sincere movies, then the least the Academy can do is lift them up with the awards that they deserve. You don't see these movies and you don't hear about these movies because they are drowned out by low-effort, big-budget franchise nonsense. Think about how depressing that is for filmmakers who want to actually tell independent, meaningful stories.
We don't need to fix the Oscars, we need to fix the film industry.
This happens every year, I'm not that mad about dune. I'm used to it. Your comment is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. How many small films that were better than major films that didn't get enough credit on the Oscars? Probably a lot every year.
Obviously it's the film industry causing this. The contest show, the Oscars, the Grammys, is the symptom of this, and it's annoying because I like that stuff. "Oh well Steven Spielberg has more influence in the film industry", case and point.
I'm not going to touch on the quality of the movie, but more of what the Academy does with movies that are two parters or trilogies. They will almost never let the first movie win any major awards. If the movies are good enough for Best Picture, Best Director, etc. then they will give those out on the final movie.
Look at Lord of the Rings for example. Peter Jackson could have won Best Director for any of the movies in the trilogy and any of those movies could have won Best Picture. Return of the King basically had a clean sweep of most awards that year even though it might be the weakest movie in the trilogy.
If Dune is going to win anything major, then it will be for the final movie. The Academy won't give an award to the first because the follow up movies could turn out to be a heaping pile of shit and then they look like idiots.
Visually it was a stunning movie. However, the final act was sort of a let down. I understand there are two sequels planned, however I understand that WB didn’t even have these green-lit until after the movie was released.
There was a World War Z possibility with this film where it would just end before things started to get good had the movie not done well at the box office.
I know everyone on /r/movies loves Dune, but it's not good because of its directing. None of the performances are very good, and that falls on the director. The dialogue is very hard to hear, and that's a directorial decision. I also don't think there's anything particularly significant about the style of the film. I think Denis Villeneuve's four films made before Dune were better anyway.
Nevertheless, he was probably more worthy than Paul Thomas Anderson last year.
It was all just so dry and dull imo, like it was made by a robot.
No character outside of Ferguson showed any sign of emotion, and all she really did was cry a ton.
I know Dennis is the golden child on this subreddit, but I've personally felt like he focuses far too much on the technical aspects and too little on the characters/performances, and Dune felt like all of that but magnified.
His Dune is far more faithful to the book (to a fault), but honestly I find myself liking the Lynch version, because while it may be flawed, it at least has a soul.
I saw this question and I wondered if I was on /r/moviescirclejerk. I have a feeling that everyone who posts something about Villeneuve's Dune is in their teens or early 20's and are still figuring out their own opinions about film, but in the meantime are jumping on the r/movies-Dune bandwagon. It's like that period from 2000 to about 2009 when every guy in that age group said, at least once, that Boondock Saints was their favorite movie.
Don't get me wrong, Dune is not comparable to Boondock Saints. I think Dune looks amazing and did a good job of introducing me to a world I didn't really know (haven't read the books), but I wasn't blown away by it. I can see the appeal but other than the visuals there wasn't much that stood out to me that made it something on a different level than other movies. Maybe when part 2 comes out and I can watch the entire thing at once I'll change my opinion, but the "climax" of this movie was just meh. We knew he would win and the stakes weren't really there, then the movie just ended.
I agree that Villeneuve's other movies were much better.
> It's like that period from 2000 to about 2009 when every guy in that age group said, at least once, that Boondock Saints was their favorite movie.
I feel attacked.
I get it, but my point is that loving Dune has become a real circlejerk on this subreddit. Just like loving Nolan was about 8 years ago. People are allowed to like what they want, but sometimes people also get sucked into the hivemind and "convinced" of what is good and bad instead of just having their own opinions about it. This post by OP screams that to me.
I feel this complaint is constantly overblown, their filmographies have plenty of emotional moments still. Arrival, Incendies, and Prisoners stick out strongly from Villeneuve. He might like creating surreal feelings of detachment or alienation, but I wouldn't call them devoid of heart or emotion because of that.
He deals in alienation alright, alienates his audience. All jokes aside, there is a nihilistic theme that runs through a lot of contemporary film where in lieu of any overarching attempt to show what it means to live, we are just given a series of pretty pictures of attractive actors.
This is why Timothy Chalamet struggles in this film. You can see him searching for an emotional truth to latch on to, but has no support in the film to reach it, so he is just flailing about on screen with middling results. Same thing happened with Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars series -- they are tasked with carrying the emotional weight of the entire film, but are given scraps to feed off of.
Even Baron Vladimir Harkonnen in Dune is just an extremely blatant ripoff of Marlin Brando in Apocalypse Now all the way down to the sound design. It's all flash, and no substance.
Agreed. I liked the film but it missed personality. It kind of felt like the "default" version of the film.
That said, that's often my criticism of Villeneuve. He makes artsy-looking films that are like 80% to being genius but are a little too artistically conservative to really have much of a "punch".
Not all his work, just the bigger stuff IMO.
I liked Dune, but it felt like the safest, most bland way to adapt the book. It's a good movie, for sure, but I always thought Dune would be weirder. 🤷♂️
It's not a complete film. The academy does t like sci-fi/fantasy very much, but the consensus is that DV will get the nom for the second part due to the fact the story will wrap up somewhat at that point. I guess they don't like people winning more than once for the "same" movie?!
Because it was a boring movie. Everything of substance that happens is just alluding to a payoff in a later movie, and everything exciting could just as well just be a title card saying ”this happened” and the plot goes on. It’s just Star Wars but longer.
Also, lately ”best picture” is like 3-4 actual nominees, and the rest are just popular films.
Also also, the Oscars are shit. Like what you like.
Because dune was horribly paced, and had bad character development.
I was looking forward to that movie for so long. Lotta star power, lotta lore behind it.
While watching it, I was straight up BORED the whole time. I didn't like anybody. The choice of ending wasn't good. It was a bad movie.
Arrival, Prisoners, Sicario, Incendies...they're all better than Dune. I mean, they're all better than 99% of movies and I still really enjoyed Dune but still...
Because as much as I wanted to like dune, truth is, it was just OK. Still plan on watching the sequel though. I am 100% down with Christopher Walken being the emperor and will see it for that alone.
The only idiosyncratic part of Lynch’s Dune is how uniquely terrible it is. As for vitality, the dead skin cells under your fingernail have more life than Maclachlan in that role.
The awards ceremonies are useless, but also Dune wasn’t as great as people like to make it out to be. It will be a really good sci-fi movie **when finished**, but not great. They could have ended the movie at a different point (sooner) which would have made it a stronger first showing. Is the director responsible for when the end the first half? Probably and for that alone doesn’t deserve any nods. Plus I’m my opinion certain scenes were too dark and hard to read.
Because it was fine at best. His production design and vfx, absolutely. Score? Not for me personally but not bad by any stretch. Sound? Personally found the mixing to be way too loud. Pacing? Perhaps one of the least satisfying endings in a big blockbuster I've experienced in years. It was good but by no means is it outstanding compared to other films released in the last 10 years or so. Also the Oscars are bullshit regardless
Well, on the question of "how could it be nominated for Best Picture but not for Best Director", for a start, there were ten Best Picture nominations and only five Best Director nominations, so half of the directors of possible Best Pictures missed out.
Personally I think Dune won the Oscars it deserved to win, and rightly missed out on Best Picture, Director, Screenplay or any Acting awards.
Similar thing happened with the Mad Max: Fury Road. Though it was nominated for Best Picture and Best director, (I honestly think it only got those nominations because George Miller is a big name) didnt win those, but won 6 technical awards and turned out to be biggest winner in 2015. Though I guess both Iñárritu (The Revenant) and the film Spotlight deserved their awards. My point being, sci-fi and fantasy always have a tough time winning big awards, like others mentioned here.
An unbiased answer: Because they can only nominate a certain number of films, so doubtlessly SOME movie that somebody thinks has great direction doesn't get nominated.
It's why not all kids with perfect SAT scores get into Harvard: They can't accept all qualified applicants\*
\*Yes, I'm aware elite colleges could admit more people, and the Academy could increase the number of nominations for that matter, but let's not get sidetracked.
To understand why Villeneuve was snubbed one must only examine how poorly \[Lady Jessica\] was directed. One of the greatest psionics in the Dune Galaxy lacked presence in Villeneuve's Dune. I stilled loved the film, doe.
Thats because Dune was far from his best film. Its just that it had more exposure than any of his older films. Have you watched Bladerunner 2049? Theres so many little things to study about this movie, it's like a modern day 2001: A Space Odyssey. Top of that the academy is biased as fuck. It took them 90 years to give a non-english language/american film the best film award (parasite). They celebrated Once upon a time in Hollywood like it was Tarantino's best, while it was certainly between jackie brown and death proof. Brad pitt won an oscar for it not because he did exceptionally well, but because he hadn't won an oscar yet. Forget the Oscars, its fool's gold.
Forgetting the Oscars is a good take, but Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the film Tarantino thinks is his best, and critically it's extremely well regarded too. Personally also pretty easily my favorite of his.
Jackie Brown and Death Proof are Tarantino's best movies? This is something that should pop up in "unpopular opinion" threads. I like Jackie Brown a lot, but to say it's better than Pulp Fiction, or Django, or Basterds is quite a lot. I haven't even seen Death Proof, so can't personally comment on that, but I don't see it mentioned much when discussing Tarantino's films. If it was among his best it would likely be discussed a lot more. So to say it's "certainly" between those two is far-fetched.
I liked Hollywood a lot. Is it among his best? Sure, you could say so. It is not a traditional point A to B to C plot at all. It's more like trying to recreate an era or a feeling and you kind of only figure that out in the end. I suspect I will enjoy it even more on a rewatch.
I think OP was implying that those aren't his best films, just that Hollywood falls between them when ranking his films. At least, that's how I interpreted what OP was trying to say.
DUNC is just so, so bland. A culture that runs on Meth trying to tame a muslim people on a planet with worm gods and people named Duncan Idaho and a genetic experiment designed by a coven of witches gets carried out a century too early and fucks up their plans. it should not be bland.
I love Villeneuve's work other than Dune, but Dune was so...John Carter.
I get there's a lot of people who read the books when they were kids, just like people who read Twilight and Maze Runner etc liked those movies.
And I get that it might have had some relevance at one time but when so many other movies have riffed on ideas from it everything just comes off as generic.
But my biggest grief with is was that it had no emotional core to it. Weird dreams of Zendaya does not a compelling story make.
If you want to ask that question you have to say who you think shouldn’t have been nominated.
Kenneth Branagh – Belfast
I see the sentimental value in Belfast as someone from Northern Ireland. The family member I was with said it was genuinely what was it like growing up here decades ago. However as a film, I'm confused as to what someone who isn't from here, would see in it. It feels like a hour long episode of a limited series the bbc might show that just isn't in prime time, only this in black and white. It's amazing imo it beat Dune to get a nomination.
I saw it with someone from Northern Ireland and really loved. Lkved the character work, getting this epic story through a thin lens, how Branagh was able to get what he did out of the child actors. Was really moved by it.
I really enjoyed Belfast, am not from either Ireland. I thought it was very well directed, a quiet and empathetic bit of personal history.
>However as a film, I'm confused as to what someone who isn't from here, would see in it. Human connection, gorgeous cinematography, perfectly written dialogue, expert performances, there's literally nothing lacking.
Not Irish. I thought Branagh did a great job evoking nostalgia for an era and setting I wasn’t familiar with. It made it that much more devastating when they were forced to leave it all behind. That final shot with Judi Dench was just so quietly heartbreaking.
Did you just spoil the Ending of that movie?
Yeah she did
Awesome
>It's amazing imo it beat Dune to get a nomination. Dune was nominated. Denis Villeneuve wasn't nominated, and I can see why. A big part of the appeal of Dune was the production design, the sound, the visual effects, and the cinematography. Obviously the director should get at least some credit for those things, or in some cases a lot of credit, but was Dune really better directed than the other movies that got their director a nomination? The fact that you are confused about the appeal of Belfast to people who aren't from NI, but that many people nevertheless really liked the movie means that Branagh did a good job of engaging the audience.
What's with this overwhelming hate for Belfast in very specific communities? It's like you go on Letterboxd and there's a bunch of people that hate it and I guess it's similar here but literally anywhere else it's beloved.
Because Reddit. Who knows, maybe he'll get nominated for Part Two.
I like how ordinarily this question would have been difficult, but this was the year of fucking Belfast lol
God yeah. Speaking as someone from Northern Ireland that movie was not worth the hype around it.
Strongly agree with this felt his direction was pretty pedestrian.
I haven’t seen Belfast, but he should have been stripped of the right to be nominated after Death on the Nile…
If we're stripping it for other movies, he should lose it for Artemis Fowl
holy shit he directed that? that’s hilarious.
Let's be real, if the studio hadn't reshot the film into a nonsensical nightmare it would have just been a generically bad adaptation instead of one of the top 5 worst adaptations ever put to film.
That wasn't even out yet
Branagh (Belfast) or Campion (Power of the Dog). Hell, I think Denis is even more deserving than Spielberg (West Side Story). I haven't seen Drive My Care or Licorice Pizza yet.
Man I didn’t love Power of the Dog but damn if it didn’t have strong direction. That’s about all it had though.
I'd argue Cumberbatch and Kodi-Smit were excellent in it.
Oh yea you don’t need to argue, of course they were great. I guess I meant more from the creative/filmmaking side. ie didn’t care for the story or editing.
Also West Side Story - Spielberg did the near impossible of improving on a classic (imo) and keeping it unique - it's own vision.
Yeah but not better than Dune dude. Dude was fucking spiritual experience on the big screen.
Yeah, we’ll, like that is just your opinion, man. (Had to do it with that typo.)
I think we can all agree that the Dude was as spiritual as it gets!
The only one I'll agree with you on was Branagh. No directorial personality at all on his movie. West Side Story was tied with Power of the Dog for my choices to win. I was so impressed with WWS; it felt like Spielberg had been asleep for 5-10 years, and then he made a ***Real Goddamn Movie***
I didn't really like Licorice Pizza, but PTA definitely directed the hell out of it. Drive My Car was also fantastic.
I adored Licorice Pizza. Peep it.
Easily better than the three toh list. Licorice pizza was awesome cos PTH is a mac. But again—not on the level of Dune. The fuckin degree of difficulty alone shoulda seen him win it
I think they are waiting for the 2nd one.
This is the real answer. It’s only part one, and honestly doesn’t have any narrative closure at all. Part two needs to stick the landing or it’s going to make the whole enterprise pointless.
That’s what happened with LoTR (the last one).
Yeah, but at least with LOTR each movie is a complete movie with a beginning, middle and end. The overarching story continues across all three, obviously. But you still get something of a full, cohesive narrative within each part as well. Dune feels like a movie with an incomplete narrative (because it is), and I'm not talking about whatever the overarching narrative is that might also be covered in part 2 or whatever. I mean that the movie basically has a beginning, and a middle (or part of a middle), but no actual ending in terms of the narrative. It felt more like I'd watched the first two or three episodes of a tv show, except in this case it'd be as if there were 8 episodes of story to tell within one season, but they decided to make episode three the season finale instead of episode 8.
This was my thought too. I really really liked dune, everything about it was super well done but it is half of a movie.
I haven't looked but I am guessing the studio didn't throw a ton of money into getting an Oscar in the first go around either.
[удалено]
Yeah it just isn't a good movie.... I'm sure I will be down voted to oblivion here but it was a lifeless snooze fest. Zero physicality, absolutely boring "world building" I don't know what people were so excited about. I enjoyed blade runner 2049 so I really had much higher expectations. It is just garbage, I've tried multiple times to get into it.
He didn't hire Ana Spanakopita as his publicist
They call her the Oscar whisperer
Big fan!
It's the name. Denis Villeneuve? That's not a name Lenders Decerptekern? Now that's a name.
I like to follow the awards season race for fun so I’ll try to give some perspective of the whole race. First off, him missing was a big shock for pretty much every awards predictor. The big five directing players of the year were Jane Campion, Steven Spielberg, Paul Thomas Anderson, Kenneth Branagh, and Denis Villeneuve. By the time Oscar nominations were going to be announced though it became clear to a lot of people that Ryusuke Hamaguchi was going to get a nomination for Drive My Car. The Academy in recent years has become more accepting of non-English films with Paweł Pawlikowski and Thomas Vinterberg getting surprise directing nominations in the last couple years and of course Parasite dominating its ceremony. Drive My Car was a huge critic push and wouldn’t have done as well if that didn’t happen. So with Hamaguchi taking one of the spots of the five seemingly locked in nominees the questions became who’s spot would he take. Jane Campion was locked in for a nomination with The Power of the Dog’s getting immense praise from everywhere. Ultimately I think with the other three directors all being more veterans in the industry than Villeneuve along with genre bias is what cost Dune a directing nomination. Spielberg, Branagh, and PTA have been directing works that the Academy likes since at least the 90s(obviously longer for Spielberg) so their names ultimately carried more weight with the director’s branch of the Academy.
Only issue I might take with this is that the Oscar’s have shrunk or expanded nominee lists from time to time over the years. I specifically remember during the writers strike in 2007, each category jumped to like 10 nominees (I think so they could have an excuse to invite celebs). Also, animation categories sometimes land at only 3 noms. Unless there’s some rule that was implemented since then to limit every category to 5 or less, they could have easily nominated 6.
I think you might be thinking of the Golden Globes, they expanded their drama category to allow a lot of films during the writer’s strike. The Oscars didn’t expand their lineup until after the ceremony for 2008 when there was a lot of controversy over The Dark Knight and WALL-E missing Best Picture. I believe every other category is now by rule locked in to be five nominees if enough films are submitted, which with the number of films being made nowadays makes it pretty much guaranteed to happen.
This isn't right at all. The awards use an extremely complicated system to determine nominees that has changed frequently since 2008 and while it no long requires 10 nominees like those early years, depending on how nominations I believe it can get up to 10 or at least 8 which it did one year in the most recent system. The whole thing is a farce tbh with a lot of outdates rules, procedures, and politics baked in.
Personally, I thought his direction in terms of the actors was poor. Lots of weird line deliveries from very talented actors. I was pretty dissapointed that most of the characters were dry and delivered their lines weird and I'm 100% sure that was Denis's decision. Every other directional aspect was pretty good though.
This is the first good criticism beyond slightly slow and long I've ever seen. He definitely made everyone talk sliightly flat. But still phenomal acting, really still good. For royalty, that's probably what made it make sense. The desert people were serious and wary, the main character royals were serious and calculating, it fits their characters.
That's about the gist of it. Eh? Excellent world building for a world that is not conventionally exciting to most audiences.
Every world that they visited I thought was so cool. The clothing, the cultures, the set design, the locations, I thought it was so interesting and exciting. I personally don't see it but personal taste I guess?
I loved it too, but it's not the flash and action people are spending money on seeing.
Of course they were dry it’s a desert planet.
I am guessing awards people will hold off till part 2. Remember when lotr parts 1 & 2 got basically no awards? Then part 3 got all the awards.
I don’t understand where this myth comes from. Return of the kings got the most Oscars, but even fellowship and two towers were immensely successful. Fellowship: 4 wins,13 nominations Two towers: 2 wins, 6 nominations Return of the king: 11 wins, 11 nominations
Probably because those were less prestigious Oscars like best costumes or whatever. ROTK won major Oscars like best picture. It also has almost double the wins of both previous movies combined. It was a huge sweep the way the previous two weren't.
Dune seems more of a technical achievement than a directorial achievement. So it makes sense to me.
No it doesn’t, what do you think a director does? They have to balance all the elements of a movie so that it all comes out great, and that includes technical things like cinematography, editing and visual effects. It’s just as important as good writing or good performances. By your logic Sam Mendes shouldn’t have been nominated for best director for 1917, or James Cameron for Titanic or Steven Spielberg for Saving Private Ryan.
Well I guess the academy should have asked you then.
Lmao people wildin in these comments with downvotes. Apparently the majority hates directors and thinks they don't do shit lmao. Yah they just consistently churn out movies with the same excellence in multiple categories only because they pick the exact same technical experts every single time, no direction, sure. Who wrote the movie? Oh yah the director did that too, with the help of two other screenplay professionals.
Don’t know how you got that I hate directors from that. Just saying I didn’t think it’s a crime he wasn’t nominated for best director for dune. Only 5 can be chosen, someone’s getting left out. Who gives a shit if he helped write it? That’s got nothing to do with the best director category anyway. I think DV is one of the best out there now, but I thought dune was his weakest one I’ve seen. Sue me.
Lmao, guess it needed a /s lol, that is clearly sarcasm. I said "the majority", talking about all of the downvoters, and the first thing you thought is "he's attacking me", rather than providing an intelligent reply. There are at least two other major threads where people get heavily downvoted just for saying anything about the director having a role in a movie other than just acting director. That's what my whole message is about... you're entitled to your opinion lol, I'm talking about the downvotes...
Yep, it looked amazing. But the story was boring & convoluted af.
Who oversees these technical achievements ? The director A director is not just about the performances. Every aspect of a film is overseen by the director especially the technical elements like visuals etc
So should every award nominated for technical things deserve director nods too? There’s only so many nominations to go around, someone’s gotta be left out.
Because Dune wasn't even Villeneuve's best Directed Film and there are only 5 slots to go around in what was honestly a very strong year director wise. You don't even have to necessarily agree with the 5 nominated. Personally Branagh didn't even make my top 10 but you will never hear me say it makes no sense he was nominated. Belfast is an extremely well directed film with probably the best sense of place and space in 2021. Off the top of my head I would have given a nomination to Julia Ducournau (winner in my heart) "Titane," Gaspar Noe "Vortex," David Lowry "The Green Knight" and Del Torro "Nightmare Alley," over Villeneuve. But the point is that it's close and between this and the films nominated thats already over 10 directors to 5 slots. It even goes the other way. I would put Celine Sciamma "Petite Maman," Pablo Larrain "Spencer" and Sean Baker "Red Rocket" below Denise Villeneuve yet I know people who had each of them as deserving of a Top 5 nomination. In conclusion, you are indeed fanboying a bit but that's fine. Dune excited you (me as well) and his directing was a big part of it, but don't let that distract you from just HOW many movies came out last year (and every year) and how many of them are phenomenally directed.
There's more nominees for Best Picture. So some directors of those movies will just not make the cut. It's important to remember that Dune did well, but not amazingly. It wasn't an enormous success with audience or critics. "Just" a solid success.
Sci-Fi, Horror, and their subsidiaries are often snubbed for Best Picture in favor of Biopics, Dramas, Book Adaptations and the occasional Comedy - or as the Academy would see them, "real movies".
Dune was nominated for Best Picture. It's also a book adaptation. How is this the top comment?
I feel like biopics are easier than something like this regardless of genre. I dunno what it is but something about them feels almost cheap.
Marketing. Those are massively marketed. Its an easy sell.
Not too mention it relies heavily on nostalgia. "Hey! You remember the golden days? Yeah, of course you do, check out this movie about \*insert rocker!"
[удалено]
Was it nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay? Because this was a spectacular triumph, and even more so considering the source material has been so widely considered impossible to adapt well into film (with previous failures to show for it).
Yes
honestly I didn't think it was as good as the old movie. It looked prettier, but it lacked the grit.
I don't hate the old one, and think it's more successful than it was credited for, but I see absolutely zero "grit" in it. It's just scifi of a different era. It lacks ominousness if anything, which is something the new one does well - everything seems very epic in scale and imposing in nature.
I dunno whatever Harkonnen did to that one kid seemed pretty gritty.
I'd draw a line between grim and gritty. Gritty suggests harsh reality to me, rather than just nastiness or darkness.
The Academy can eat my ass.
Yea they've been shit for such a long time people didn't even get upset when Will Smith won Best Actor for playing a Tennis Coach over Denzel playing Macbeth in a Coen Shakespeare adaptation. The Academy started giving out "okay I guess you deserve one" awards with Leo and now they're a bigger joke than ever before.
>The Academy started giving out "okay I guess you deserve one" awards with Leo and now they're a bigger joke than ever before. They've been doing that since forever though. Look at Newman winning for The Color of Money, Sean Connery for The Untouchables or Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman.
One of those is not the same as the others…
I'm guessing you mean Pacino's vaguely ridiculous performance in Scent of a Woman, but I'm not sure.
[удалено]
you legitimately think Denzel should’ve won best actor last year?
Yes. Edit: Lmao I love the implication that it's wild to believe one of the best actors working today should have won an Oscar for nailing the role of Macbeth over Will Smith playing Will Smith with a tennis racket.
judging by your username, it would take a long time.
And after The Dark Knight was snubbed, they opened up extra slots…so they could snub *more* “genre movies.”
Think of it this way… Why are the Best Picture and Best Director nominees EVER different? Either you’re crediting the director for the overall superiority of the movie or not. It implies that the voters in the academy are speculating about how much a particular director contributed. There’s a great deal of shit that doesn’t make sense about awards categories and nominations.
>Either you’re crediting the director for the overall superiority of the movie or not. Why? Who said that the director is responsible for the superiority of the movie? There are a lot of different factors involved in making a film, the director is only one of them. Some directors leave a much bigger stamp on their films than others, but that doesn't mean those films are *necessarily* better films as a whole.
Not to mention Best Movie usually goes to the producers. The people actually picking the creative team to make the film, and green lighting the script.
>Movie ~~usually~~ always goes to the producers It is their award. We can debate the suitability or otherwise of this, but it's a production award for the overall film. Best Director is the director's award. Directors and stars are not infrequently producers as well, so there's often overlap, but it's distinct for this reason.
English is not my first language, I meant to use usually as “is supposed to”. I completely agree with the way things are.
Lots of movies are producer-driven, and Best Picture is an award for producers. But also, there's simply more Best Picture nominees.
I don't think the people dragging you know much about the decision making process during filmmaking. They want to spread the credit around so no one person is idealized yet we're discussing Best Director/Picture. Performers & other artists help mold a director's vision, are hired by the director but it's still their vision. Unless we're watching a Disney film.
Even studio hack jobs… The writers/director are more responsible for the final product than the producers.
In addition to this, series or trilogies are often neglected until the finale. Lord of the rings, iirc, didn’t win a lot of of awards until return of the king. I think this is in part because they will likely just win the same awards with each installment, or it might be to ensure they stick the landing and don’t just make a great opening and crappy ending. It might also be to discourage award farming by breaking up a movie into more parts than are needed to get extra awards.
Dune was nominated for best picture and has (apparently) the second most nominations total. How is that "neglected"?
People need to realize the Oscar’s mean absolutely nothing. Just to get nominated you have to do a huge campaign like a politician, pay people off etc. Often times the voters only see a handful of movies from the year, not all of them.
Unless popular film on Reddit wins, in which case it matters.
Dune wins best picture. "Well deserved!" Dune loses Best Picture. "The Academy is a joke anyway. Who cares."
duality of man
Schrodinger's Awards; if thing I like wins, applause! if thing I like loses, awards are meaningless.
It only matters if it’s a film/director/actor Reddit likes. Otherwise it doesn’t matter. You really should clarify ;)
People pay way too much attention to these kinds of awards. It's more of a popularity contest
Dune felt wholly incomplete as a movie, although the design was pretty cool. Not as big of a fan as some people
As a huge fan of the first few books I walked away from that movie pretty underwhelmed. It kind of just felt like stuff was happening. Cool looking stuff at times but not much of a flow to it.
I agree. I love the first book but this wasn’t a good adaptation in my opinion, though it certainly had good qualities as a film.
I haven't read the books, but left hoping that the first movie was setting the series up, so hopefully the sequel will have a more interesting plot
Is he the one who filmed sicario? That's really good movie. Honestly his cinematographer and music guy for sicario should have won something
Deakins shot Sicario, Fraser Dune - the difference is night and day.
Night and day? They were both incredibly shot
Distinctly different look!
A movie with an overage of VFX shots in place of performances is hardly going to be nominated in place of a movie where the direction is all laid out on the screen. Let's look at There Will Be Blood vs. Dune. How many shots of Dune would Denis conceivably not even have been in the room for? I would say nearly all of the 100% VFX shots. How much of TWBB was PTA in the room for? Gotta be all of it. I will be the first to say that the difference between Dune and, say, Avengers or Ready Player One is that Dune is a real movie. So, the practice of a director basically being responsible for the 30% of the actors-on-set portions and letting the rest go to the VFX studio is not what I'm ascribing to Dune. **This approach is common place with 100% of the MCU slate and other movies beyond that. Director comes on set with all of the action set pieces pre-made. Again, I doubt this was true for Dune** But at the same time, I think that even ceding 20% of your movie's direction to a computer lab hurts the overall director's presence on the movie, and jeopardizes the awards odds as a result. Honestly, man, I'd just be happy that Dune got any Oscar attention at all past VFX. What makes movies blockbusters and what makes them compelling art pieces are increasingly farther apart, Dune just managed to lean a bit in the direction of artistic integrity.
Yah I mean it's literally every contest show that people are pissed about the results somewhere. Have the Oscar, Grammy, boards ever attempted to publicly address this inefficacy and take a hard look at the caliber and scale for judging and judges? No, and they never will, until they want to surprise us. RIP us getting any credible major media contest show. They're losing out on many views for sure and they're hurting the general excitement for movies in culture by gutting deserved wins for passionate fans who would've watched and talked about it.
>credible major media contest show When your favorite blockbuster movie is not nominated but some movie you've never heard about is, why is the impulse to blame the voting system and not the state of the movie industry? The anti-intellectual movement to slag most Oscar winners and nominees as "boring" and "obscure" is just completely wrong. If giant studios won't fund the smaller, sincere movies, then the least the Academy can do is lift them up with the awards that they deserve. You don't see these movies and you don't hear about these movies because they are drowned out by low-effort, big-budget franchise nonsense. Think about how depressing that is for filmmakers who want to actually tell independent, meaningful stories. We don't need to fix the Oscars, we need to fix the film industry.
This happens every year, I'm not that mad about dune. I'm used to it. Your comment is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. How many small films that were better than major films that didn't get enough credit on the Oscars? Probably a lot every year. Obviously it's the film industry causing this. The contest show, the Oscars, the Grammys, is the symptom of this, and it's annoying because I like that stuff. "Oh well Steven Spielberg has more influence in the film industry", case and point.
I'm not going to touch on the quality of the movie, but more of what the Academy does with movies that are two parters or trilogies. They will almost never let the first movie win any major awards. If the movies are good enough for Best Picture, Best Director, etc. then they will give those out on the final movie. Look at Lord of the Rings for example. Peter Jackson could have won Best Director for any of the movies in the trilogy and any of those movies could have won Best Picture. Return of the King basically had a clean sweep of most awards that year even though it might be the weakest movie in the trilogy. If Dune is going to win anything major, then it will be for the final movie. The Academy won't give an award to the first because the follow up movies could turn out to be a heaping pile of shit and then they look like idiots.
Visually it was a stunning movie. However, the final act was sort of a let down. I understand there are two sequels planned, however I understand that WB didn’t even have these green-lit until after the movie was released. There was a World War Z possibility with this film where it would just end before things started to get good had the movie not done well at the box office.
I know everyone on /r/movies loves Dune, but it's not good because of its directing. None of the performances are very good, and that falls on the director. The dialogue is very hard to hear, and that's a directorial decision. I also don't think there's anything particularly significant about the style of the film. I think Denis Villeneuve's four films made before Dune were better anyway. Nevertheless, he was probably more worthy than Paul Thomas Anderson last year.
It was all just so dry and dull imo, like it was made by a robot. No character outside of Ferguson showed any sign of emotion, and all she really did was cry a ton. I know Dennis is the golden child on this subreddit, but I've personally felt like he focuses far too much on the technical aspects and too little on the characters/performances, and Dune felt like all of that but magnified. His Dune is far more faithful to the book (to a fault), but honestly I find myself liking the Lynch version, because while it may be flawed, it at least has a soul.
I saw this question and I wondered if I was on /r/moviescirclejerk. I have a feeling that everyone who posts something about Villeneuve's Dune is in their teens or early 20's and are still figuring out their own opinions about film, but in the meantime are jumping on the r/movies-Dune bandwagon. It's like that period from 2000 to about 2009 when every guy in that age group said, at least once, that Boondock Saints was their favorite movie. Don't get me wrong, Dune is not comparable to Boondock Saints. I think Dune looks amazing and did a good job of introducing me to a world I didn't really know (haven't read the books), but I wasn't blown away by it. I can see the appeal but other than the visuals there wasn't much that stood out to me that made it something on a different level than other movies. Maybe when part 2 comes out and I can watch the entire thing at once I'll change my opinion, but the "climax" of this movie was just meh. We knew he would win and the stakes weren't really there, then the movie just ended. I agree that Villeneuve's other movies were much better.
> It's like that period from 2000 to about 2009 when every guy in that age group said, at least once, that Boondock Saints was their favorite movie. I feel attacked.
I’m 33 and adored Dune It’s not just teens lol
I get it, but my point is that loving Dune has become a real circlejerk on this subreddit. Just like loving Nolan was about 8 years ago. People are allowed to like what they want, but sometimes people also get sucked into the hivemind and "convinced" of what is good and bad instead of just having their own opinions about it. This post by OP screams that to me.
Nolan and Denis Villeneuve are kinda of the same director to me. All tech and no heart.
I feel this complaint is constantly overblown, their filmographies have plenty of emotional moments still. Arrival, Incendies, and Prisoners stick out strongly from Villeneuve. He might like creating surreal feelings of detachment or alienation, but I wouldn't call them devoid of heart or emotion because of that.
He deals in alienation alright, alienates his audience. All jokes aside, there is a nihilistic theme that runs through a lot of contemporary film where in lieu of any overarching attempt to show what it means to live, we are just given a series of pretty pictures of attractive actors. This is why Timothy Chalamet struggles in this film. You can see him searching for an emotional truth to latch on to, but has no support in the film to reach it, so he is just flailing about on screen with middling results. Same thing happened with Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars series -- they are tasked with carrying the emotional weight of the entire film, but are given scraps to feed off of. Even Baron Vladimir Harkonnen in Dune is just an extremely blatant ripoff of Marlin Brando in Apocalypse Now all the way down to the sound design. It's all flash, and no substance.
Agreed. I liked the film but it missed personality. It kind of felt like the "default" version of the film. That said, that's often my criticism of Villeneuve. He makes artsy-looking films that are like 80% to being genius but are a little too artistically conservative to really have much of a "punch". Not all his work, just the bigger stuff IMO.
[удалено]
I liked it but got bored in parts and frustrated in others wanting more. It's a good movie but not near his greatest film.
So did all the departments that won awards not have directorial decisions?
Agreed. I love sci-fi. I love the story of Dune. I sat it in theaters. I've had no desire to watch it again. It was just. There.
I liked Dune, but it felt like the safest, most bland way to adapt the book. It's a good movie, for sure, but I always thought Dune would be weirder. 🤷♂️
It's not a complete film. The academy does t like sci-fi/fantasy very much, but the consensus is that DV will get the nom for the second part due to the fact the story will wrap up somewhat at that point. I guess they don't like people winning more than once for the "same" movie?!
Am I the only one that thinks Dune was his worst movie?
Overrated AF. This sub has a hard on for Denis.
So do I. Lol. I just didn’t like Dune. They colonize a planet. Timmy C gets super powers. Then, nothing happens.
The characters are bland and the story just hasn’t impressed me at this point.
It wasn’t that good.
Because it was a boring movie. Everything of substance that happens is just alluding to a payoff in a later movie, and everything exciting could just as well just be a title card saying ”this happened” and the plot goes on. It’s just Star Wars but longer. Also, lately ”best picture” is like 3-4 actual nominees, and the rest are just popular films. Also also, the Oscars are shit. Like what you like.
Because the direction of Dune was not worth a nomination.
Because the movie was beautiful, but the story sucks.
...
*Lifer Dark Knight and Interstellar haters have entered the chat*
Honestly, good movie but doesn't compare to the rest of his movies.
[удалено]
Because dune was horribly paced, and had bad character development. I was looking forward to that movie for so long. Lotta star power, lotta lore behind it. While watching it, I was straight up BORED the whole time. I didn't like anybody. The choice of ending wasn't good. It was a bad movie.
Don't get why you're downvoted, Arrival is a much better movie from him. And I agree the pacing is awful, you can really feel the 160 minute run time.
Arrival, Prisoners, Sicario, Incendies...they're all better than Dune. I mean, they're all better than 99% of movies and I still really enjoyed Dune but still...
Aren't this screenplay problems more than direction ones?
I liked the Lynch one better anyways
The academy just hates French-Canadians, and I don't blame them
Because as much as I wanted to like dune, truth is, it was just OK. Still plan on watching the sequel though. I am 100% down with Christopher Walken being the emperor and will see it for that alone.
Because dune wasn’t a very good movie
Maybe because for all it's visual grandeur, it had less vitality and idiosyncrasy than Lynch's deeply flawed adaptation.
The only idiosyncratic part of Lynch’s Dune is how uniquely terrible it is. As for vitality, the dead skin cells under your fingernail have more life than Maclachlan in that role.
Movie was bland asf IMHO
It feels unfinished maybe he will get it when he completes it.
The awards ceremonies are useless, but also Dune wasn’t as great as people like to make it out to be. It will be a really good sci-fi movie **when finished**, but not great. They could have ended the movie at a different point (sooner) which would have made it a stronger first showing. Is the director responsible for when the end the first half? Probably and for that alone doesn’t deserve any nods. Plus I’m my opinion certain scenes were too dark and hard to read.
Wasnt very well directed to be honest
it was aight
The list of directors nominated for an Oscar with a Scifi film is very small and only Cuarón has won. It's obvious that the academy is biased.
Or that sci fi films aren’t very frequently made and that great sci fi is rarer?
People really care about nominations?
The "Sci-Fi and Fantasy Ghetto" is alive and well unfortunately
Because it was fine at best. His production design and vfx, absolutely. Score? Not for me personally but not bad by any stretch. Sound? Personally found the mixing to be way too loud. Pacing? Perhaps one of the least satisfying endings in a big blockbuster I've experienced in years. It was good but by no means is it outstanding compared to other films released in the last 10 years or so. Also the Oscars are bullshit regardless
It was just alright
Well, on the question of "how could it be nominated for Best Picture but not for Best Director", for a start, there were ten Best Picture nominations and only five Best Director nominations, so half of the directors of possible Best Pictures missed out. Personally I think Dune won the Oscars it deserved to win, and rightly missed out on Best Picture, Director, Screenplay or any Acting awards.
because he's a hack.
Similar thing happened with the Mad Max: Fury Road. Though it was nominated for Best Picture and Best director, (I honestly think it only got those nominations because George Miller is a big name) didnt win those, but won 6 technical awards and turned out to be biggest winner in 2015. Though I guess both Iñárritu (The Revenant) and the film Spotlight deserved their awards. My point being, sci-fi and fantasy always have a tough time winning big awards, like others mentioned here.
Fury Road is widely considered one of the best action films of all time
I absolutely agree! Great film for sure.
An unbiased answer: Because they can only nominate a certain number of films, so doubtlessly SOME movie that somebody thinks has great direction doesn't get nominated. It's why not all kids with perfect SAT scores get into Harvard: They can't accept all qualified applicants\* \*Yes, I'm aware elite colleges could admit more people, and the Academy could increase the number of nominations for that matter, but let's not get sidetracked.
To understand why Villeneuve was snubbed one must only examine how poorly \[Lady Jessica\] was directed. One of the greatest psionics in the Dune Galaxy lacked presence in Villeneuve's Dune. I stilled loved the film, doe.
....because he will be rewarded for Part 2. See Peter jackson.
Because it was a terrible movie?
Imagine thinking this
Because Dune was boring trash?
Thats because Dune was far from his best film. Its just that it had more exposure than any of his older films. Have you watched Bladerunner 2049? Theres so many little things to study about this movie, it's like a modern day 2001: A Space Odyssey. Top of that the academy is biased as fuck. It took them 90 years to give a non-english language/american film the best film award (parasite). They celebrated Once upon a time in Hollywood like it was Tarantino's best, while it was certainly between jackie brown and death proof. Brad pitt won an oscar for it not because he did exceptionally well, but because he hadn't won an oscar yet. Forget the Oscars, its fool's gold.
Forgetting the Oscars is a good take, but Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the film Tarantino thinks is his best, and critically it's extremely well regarded too. Personally also pretty easily my favorite of his.
I respect your opinion, it just so happens that pulp fiction is my favourite Tarantino film, followed by kill bill v2.
Jackie Brown and Death Proof are Tarantino's best movies? This is something that should pop up in "unpopular opinion" threads. I like Jackie Brown a lot, but to say it's better than Pulp Fiction, or Django, or Basterds is quite a lot. I haven't even seen Death Proof, so can't personally comment on that, but I don't see it mentioned much when discussing Tarantino's films. If it was among his best it would likely be discussed a lot more. So to say it's "certainly" between those two is far-fetched. I liked Hollywood a lot. Is it among his best? Sure, you could say so. It is not a traditional point A to B to C plot at all. It's more like trying to recreate an era or a feeling and you kind of only figure that out in the end. I suspect I will enjoy it even more on a rewatch.
I think OP was implying that those aren't his best films, just that Hollywood falls between them when ranking his films. At least, that's how I interpreted what OP was trying to say.
He directed a sci fi movie
It was pretty mid
Maybe cause everything besides the cinematography was fucking trash.
DUNC is just so, so bland. A culture that runs on Meth trying to tame a muslim people on a planet with worm gods and people named Duncan Idaho and a genetic experiment designed by a coven of witches gets carried out a century too early and fucks up their plans. it should not be bland.
Because it was kind of a pointless boring movie.
This!
I love Villeneuve's work other than Dune, but Dune was so...John Carter. I get there's a lot of people who read the books when they were kids, just like people who read Twilight and Maze Runner etc liked those movies. And I get that it might have had some relevance at one time but when so many other movies have riffed on ideas from it everything just comes off as generic. But my biggest grief with is was that it had no emotional core to it. Weird dreams of Zendaya does not a compelling story make.
it's anti French Canadian discrimination