OT: Shakespeare in Love (1998)

[TT]

Won...

-Best Picture

-Best Actress in a Leading Role
Gwyneth Paltrow

-Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Judi Dench

And what a totally crap picture! No wonder I never watched it before.
I think the worst Best Pic winner I've seen. Really hard time getting
through it, and I gave up after an hour plus.

Perhaps even more surprising must be Gwynnie's Oscar, her performance
was as mediocre as it gets. She showed some breasts so maybe it was for
that?

I guess Dench was ok for the few minutes she was on screen. Although it
felt like her performance was for some other film.

Joseph Fiennes was terrible as Shakespeare, and I have no idea who
Affleck had to sleep with to get the role.

Now don't tell me Courtsie that you loved the film...

[calim...@gmx.de]

I recommend "John Wick" to you.

Max

[soccerfan777]

When had Gwyneth been a good actress? Or been beautiful? Total hype for a bitch with No tits or ass

[TT]

Even John Wick 2 is better than this trite unfunny bore.

[SliceAndDice]

I did not think it was crap, wasn't great either. And Blanchett was totally robbed of the Oscar for Elizabeth that year.

[calim...@gmx.de]

I'm sure it is, that's why I recommended it.

Max

[TT]

soccerfan777 kirjoitti 9.6.2017 klo 22:00:
> When had Gwyneth been a good actress?

Never. But she got leading actress Oscar here for doing exactly same
thing she does in every film. Unfathomable.

Must have been a terribly good promo campaign from film producers.

> Or been beautiful? Total hype for a bitch with No tits or ass
>

She's not ugly, although you have a point about her curves.

[Gracchus]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 12:09:45 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> soccerfan777 kirjoitti 9.6.2017 klo 22:00:

> > When had Gwyneth been a good actress?

> Never. But she got leading actress Oscar here for doing exactly same
> thing she does in every film. Unfathomable.

Quite true. She's an awful actress. Another case of Hollywood nepotism where producer-director father and actress mother drop their daughter into the industry without ever having to learn her so-called craft. Paltrow walks through every film with the same insipid smile, and that's the extent of her abilities. She's only inoffensive in the "Iron Man" films because they require nothing of her.

[TT]

Gracchus kirjoitti 9.6.2017 klo 22:47:
> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 12:09:45 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> soccerfan777 kirjoitti 9.6.2017 klo 22:00:
>
>>> When had Gwyneth been a good actress?
>
>> Never. But she got leading actress Oscar here for doing exactly same
>> thing she does in every film. Unfathomable.
>
> Quite true. She's an awful actress. Another case of Hollywood nepotism where producer-director father and actress mother drop their daughter into the industry without ever having to learn her so-called craft. Paltrow walks through every film with the same insipid smile, and that's the extent of her abilities.

I'd describe that as a 'grin', rather. You can imagine the zero
chemistry between the two leads, neither can act. The other one was
probably there because of a famous brother...

The film compensated the lack of charisma by multiple sex scenes. At one
one point I said out loud "they're fucking again...". Shakespeare and
fucking, brilliant...

[StephenJ]

>On 6/9/2017 2:56 PM, TT wrote:
> Won...
>
> -Best Picture
>

I saw the actual film in a real movie theater in late 1998, maybe early
1999. At the time, it seemingly had a cute cleverness to it.

It's not the crap you make it out to be, but I agree it has not aged
well, is a lightweight movie, not deserving of the Oscars it got.

[bob]

gwyneth paltrow has a huge cult following in the gay community. hence
her ability to get big movie roles, IMO.

bob

[Court_1]

I saw it a long time ago when it came out in the cinema. I don't think the film or Paltrow's performance was bad at all.

[Gracchus]

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:

> I saw it a long time ago when it came out in the cinema. I don't think the film or Paltrow's performance was bad at all.

Both were bad. That is the final word. ;)

[Court_1]

I wonder if I watched it today if I would still find it ok or if I would feel differently now that I'm a bit older and wiser. I didn't love it back then but I thought it was ok. Certainly not awful.

[soccerfan777]

I saw the movie long back as well. It wasn't awful but wasn't a piece of art either. And I thought Paltrow was annoying as usual. I prefer The English Patient by miles. A lot of people seem to hate it though.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:09:56 AM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
> I saw the movie long back as well. It wasn't awful but wasn't a piece of art either. And I thought Paltrow was annoying as usual. I prefer The English Patient by miles. A lot of people seem to hate it though.

The English Patient???? That movie is like catnip for me. Very few movies are better than that one IMO. I mean movies in that same genre.

[TT]

Will you watch E.T. today?

[Court_1]

Ha ha. Yes, I'll watch. Hell, I even want her to win. I've come a long way with respect to E.T.

[TT]

Court_1 kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 5:58:
> I saw it a long time ago when it came out in the cinema. I don't think the film or Paltrow's performance was bad at all.
>
>
>

Yeah, well maybe the film wasn't as terrible as I made it sound, but
still the worst Oscar winner I've seen.
And Gwynnie wasn't terrible, but certainly not Oscar worthy either.

I gave it a 4, although I felt it was more like a 3... but since I
couldn't bare to watch it all the way through I give it a benefit of
doubt that it'd improve in last 40 minutes (although skimming through
the rest of the film it didn't look like it did).

It sure had a lot of (poorly filmed and unerotic) fucking for a Oscar
winner.

[Whisper]

Haven't seen it so won't comment. How was the competition that yr?
Guessing quite lame?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[StephenJ]

On 6/10/2017 6:04 AM, Whisper wrote:
> On 10/06/2017 1:28 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>>> I saw it a long time ago when it came out in the cinema. I don't
>>> think the film or Paltrow's performance was bad at all.
>>
>> Both were bad. That is the final word. ;)
>>
>
>
> Haven't seen it so won't comment. How was the competition that yr?
> Guessing quite lame?

The USA consensus then, and probably now, was that Saving Private Ryan
was the most deserving for Best Picture. Steven Spielberg certainly
thought so, LOL. And I agree it was a better film.

But yes, 1998 wasn't the very best year for American film by a long
shot. Especially coming on the heels of 1997, which was a really great year.

[TT]

Whisper kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 13:04:
> On 10/06/2017 1:28 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>>> I saw it a long time ago when it came out in the cinema. I don't
>>> think the film or Paltrow's performance was bad at all.
>>
>> Both were bad. That is the final word. ;)
>>
>
>
> Haven't seen it so won't comment. How was the competition that yr?
> Guessing quite lame?
>
>

http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000003/1999?ref_=ttawd_ev_1

Two 'period pieces:
Shakespeare in Love
Elizabeth

Two war films:
Saving Private Ryan
Thin Red Line

And one in between:
Life is Beautiful

[Whisper]

Actually I did see Private Ryan, at the cinema to boot. I thought it
was good.

[TT]

...I don't think other contestants were bad at all.
Although I haven't seen 'Elizabeth' (apparently Blanchett's best
performance ever)

[StephenJ]

So did I. The opening sequences, the beach landing, was epic.

[TT]

StephenJ kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 13:33:
> On 6/10/2017 6:04 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> On 10/06/2017 1:28 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw it a long time ago when it came out in the cinema. I don't
>>>> think the film or Paltrow's performance was bad at all.
>>>
>>> Both were bad. That is the final word. ;)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Haven't seen it so won't comment. How was the competition that yr?
>> Guessing quite lame?
>
> The USA consensus then, and probably now, was that Saving Private Ryan
> was the most deserving for Best Picture. Steven Spielberg certainly
> thought so, LOL. And I agree it was a better film.
>

I think Thin Red Line is slightly better than 'Ryan'... at least more
the type of a film Oscars should love... artistic deep exploration by
Terrence Malick, a different kind of a war film.

[bob]

i didn't love ET in 1985. loved close encounters though.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 20:04:24 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/06/2017 1:28 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>>> I saw it a long time ago when it came out in the cinema. I don't think the film or Paltrow's performance was bad at all.
>>
>> Both were bad. That is the final word. ;)
>>
>
>
>Haven't seen it so won't comment. How was the competition that yr?
>Guessing quite lame?

i watched shakespeare in love and i remember getting the best hour of
sleep i had in a long time. honestly.

bob

[StephenJ]

On 6/10/2017 6:55 AM, TT wrote:
> StephenJ kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 13:33:
>> On 6/10/2017 6:04 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2017 1:28 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>>>> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I saw it a long time ago when it came out in the cinema. I don't
>>>>> think the film or Paltrow's performance was bad at all.
>>>>
>>>> Both were bad. That is the final word. ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Haven't seen it so won't comment. How was the competition that yr?
>>> Guessing quite lame?
>>
>> The USA consensus then, and probably now, was that Saving Private Ryan
>> was the most deserving for Best Picture. Steven Spielberg certainly
>> thought so, LOL. And I agree it was a better film.
>>
>
> I think Thin Red Line is slightly better than 'Ryan'... at least more
> the type of a film Oscars should love... artistic deep exploration by
> Terrence Malick, a different kind of a war film.

Agree it is different. But I recall that when I saw TRL in the theater,
I found myself admiring it more than liking it. I think at one point I
almost dozed off, LOL. To me, it went too deep, there's a significant
stretch where it just turns aimless, spinning its wheels.

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 13:55:46 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>StephenJ kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 13:33:
>> On 6/10/2017 6:04 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2017 1:28 PM, Gracchus wrote:
>>>> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I saw it a long time ago when it came out in the cinema. I don't
>>>>> think the film or Paltrow's performance was bad at all.
>>>>
>>>> Both were bad. That is the final word. ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Haven't seen it so won't comment. How was the competition that yr?
>>> Guessing quite lame?
>>
>> The USA consensus then, and probably now, was that Saving Private Ryan
>> was the most deserving for Best Picture. Steven Spielberg certainly
>> thought so, LOL. And I agree it was a better film.
>>
>
>I think Thin Red Line is slightly better than 'Ryan'... at least more
>the type of a film Oscars should love... artistic deep exploration by
>Terrence Malick, a different kind of a war film.

thin red line was a great movie IMO. private ryan an excellent movie
too, just a far different type of movie. war doesn't always equal war.

bob

[TT]

Yeah, it gets a bit meditative at times...
Excellent war scenes balance it out somewhat.

[Whisper]

Yep. The reason I remember it so well is because it was on the big
screen. You're right it's much more immersive than watching at home.