The MOST Pretentious Oscar Bait Failure Of All Time?

You say that when I'm questioning the relevance of you bringing that movie into this context... The irony isn't lost on me.

Oh I forgot about Tulip Fever (2017). The third and final nail in the coffin that was Dane DeHaan’s attempt at becoming a leading man.

I haven't seen it in awhile, but I remember feeling like his character was really trying to convey how much he loved dick. I think the only movie he was gayer in was Interview With The Vampire.

No, I wrote "How so?" and I didn't use any exclamation points. Big difference.That's precisely why, when I quoted you, I erased most of your text. So you would know what part I was referring to.

It wasn't a response, but a question.Then why do you expect people to agree with your idea?But that's not an argument to be made about MAGNOLIA specifically. It's also an assumption that, even if it's true, it's not always reflected in the content itself.Ummm... It's a forum about movies (there's even a section dedicated to awards). We're talking in a thread about the Oscars created by someone else.

I know. I didn't say you weren't allowed to refer to certain movies as such.I also didn't say it's a bad thing to call a movie that. I use the term all the time too. If it's being used inaccurately, it's another subject.

Regarding Henry. A blatant attempt to get Harrison Ford an Oscar. He wasn't even nominated.

A film that was highly touted at the time of its release, was totally "relevant", and can't be called a failure, at least not financially, that qualifies for me as terrible and pretentious, deserves a mention: The Big Chill. A ton of talent went into the making of this movie, but they did it badly; it probably shouldn't have been made; and yet it hit the spot for many. I saw it two or three years after its release, and it already felt like a time capsule.

My sense even then is that many people who saw the movie and liked it at the time would, once their heads cleared, gladly give back their time and money not not to have seen it, were literally embarrassed for liking it the the first time around. The movie seemed to be aiming to "define" life in contemporary America, how much it's changed, yet with the passage of rather little time, it came to seem too self-absorbed or, as they used to say back then, narcissistic.

Still, the movie was a success, a moneymaker--and a hit with the kinds of people it was targeting. It was competently made. Yet it lacked beauty, any one thing, one moment, an idea, a genuine insight or understanding, of what it was really about. To me, it just kind of rambled along, played it safe, dealt with a few tough issues (emphasis on "dealt"), then neither resolved nor really explained the story it was telling. When it was over I felt like I'd learned nothing, gained no insights into what was basically "my generation", too. I didn't "recognize" anyone in the picture as "someone I've known". It was all about "them". I was disappointed. But maybe that's what the film was about: I'm disappointed.