This movie was superior to Titanic in acting, directing, writing, and set direction. Don't get me wrong, Titanic is a good movie but L.A is so much better for the reasons listed above.
Agree or diagree?
[deleted]
It's easy to say that Titanic won and made lots of money because of teenage girls, but if this was how things worked Twilight or its various sequels would be the most successful films out. Sure Titanic had teenage fans, but almost all critics thought it was a masterpiece as well.
LA and Titanic are both good, and both have flaws. In the end it all comes down to POV. its not a Brokeback-Crash situation where one film was clearly robbed. Either film *could* have won, and Titanic happened to on the day.
I believe Titanic is better, because I think LAC is just a bit too messy.
flawed? messy? What are you talking about. If one of the two is flawed it is Titanic. too long, too sappy, visually ostentatious, less than stellar acting. All overcome by great story line and sound track. I see no flaws in LAC.
share[deleted]
by - Mark1985 on Wed Aug 3 2011 18:23:05
The Oscars are a joke anyway. But this is a much better movie than Titanic.
[deleted]
Now why is that, Mr. Valentine? I was unaware you were anti-Kevin Spacey!
Love you, "C" - RIP Clarence Clemons
[deleted]
I still need to see this film. But it's always rented out whenever I am in the mood to see it.
I do think the acting in Titanic was pretty good however. The only problem is the script which is over reliant on the characters repeating each others names and talking like 90s people instead of people in 1912.
I do think Titanic is one of the better Oscar winners in the past 30 years. It may not have been the best of 1997, but that doesnt make it the "Worst Best Picture".
Titanic deserved to win. It was an event movie that will be talked about a long time after LA Confidential is forgotten.
shareI'm not a fan of Titanic, but let's face it, sometimes they have to give the oscars to some movies NOT because they made a lot of money, but because those movies connected with the audience. Titanic was an event picture, even our grandmas went to see it, and you have to give some recognition to the filmmakers for that achievement
Putting that aside, L.A. Confidential is a million times better movie.
Maybe the exception was Star Wars, everyone though it was going to win that year, but then came Annie Hall, both movies are great and both are considered classics today.
[deleted]
That's exactly right Cypher. This film is a true masterpiece, and nobody likes it more than me. It's definitely in my top 3 favorite films. Personally, I regard it as the greatest film noir movie of all time - even better than Maltese Falcon, or Touch of Evil. The dialog is superior. The plot is as dense as it could be without becoming overly complex. The casting and acting are spot-on perfect. And the character depth is just awesome.
But with that said, Titanic is a movie that meant a lot more to a great amount of people than LA Confidential will ever mean to its biggest fans (myself included). Titanic was a landmark epic movie event. LA Confidential was simply a film masterpiece. There's a difference, and in this case the movie which truly represented the year in cinema was given the award.
That's where you are SO wrong MichaelInlori.
Whereas L.A.Confidential is on #70 on the Imdb top 250, Titanic is rightfully OUT of it!
Now I suggest you check out Red Letter Media's review of "Avatar" (which is a 1,7 million view hit on youtube) to see what kind of cheap tricks James Cameron uses to make a lot of people fall for his cardboard character fluff. Do so before I carefully explain to you how much of an i**** you are.
That guy's shot about LA Confidential not being remembered was ridiculous at best. It absolutely deserved best picture, but if the best picture did win everytime then Raging Bull, Mystic River, Gangs of New York, and other movies also were shafted. But people with a real sense of movies know this is the one to see.
shareReturn of the King was the best Best Picture ever and should not have been beaten by Mystic River.
Gangs of New York is better than Chicago, but I don't know if it should have won.
Anyway, Titanic gets way too much hate. Just because it may have beat a more deserving winner doesnt mean it's the worst best picture. Worst Best Picture is a film that has little to no reedming qualities...like Crash.
Return of the King was only better to those who don't have the emotional maturity for Mystic River. Cinematography aside, Return of the King's only merit was to be the final movie in an ambitious project, and it's Oscar was a reward for the 3 movies collectively. In the end, the LOTR series lacked the acting gravitas and writing to be truly great. Mystic River had both in spades.
Gangs of New York was streets ahead of any other movie that came out that year. That isn't debatable. What is, is that it might be the best movie of the decade. Crash was a cop-out because many voters thought America wasn't ready for Brokeback Mountain, and they were right. America, for the most part, isn't.
The Oscars have given up the right to be considered best picture because there are so many best pictures that are meant to send messages. I loved the Departed, but the only reason it won was as a lifetime achievement award to Martin Scorsese. Million Dollar Baby won as a way to make it up to Clint Eastwood for passing over Mystic River, and that is from the mouths of several voters.
Your opinions are valid as opinions, but as statements of fact are... lacking.
You're right, I shouldnt state my opinions as facts. But when I say Return of hte King is the best "Best Picture", I was just talking from my point of view.
Anyway, I disagree that The Return of the King has poor writing. I think the Lord of the Rings (can't really just say RotK since the trilogy is more like a three part movie), has a great story and it reached it's peak in Return of the King. That's why it deserved the Oscar. The acting wasnt Oscar worthy (with the exception of Andy Serkis who I do think should have won an oscar in the second film, motion capture or not), but it was good enough to make me care about the characters.
Also about Crash...I'm not saying it's a bad movie because it beat a more desrving winner. I'm saying it should have lost because I think is a very very BAD movie and that there are probably a dozen or two other movies that should have been nominated instead. I have never seen such a preachy and horribly written movie and downright insulting movie as Crash. That doesnt mean Brokeback needed to win (that movie is a bit overrated), but at least SOME movie other than Crash should have.
McClane 101, I respect your opinions and you lay out your points very well, but I'm afraid to say that Gangs of New York is indubitably a great film is laughable: much, indeed, like that movie, the worst film Scorsese's made a country mile and a film that was so piss-poor it made me want to stab the screen. I'd give it 2 out of 10; both for Daniel Day-Lewis. And in case you're thinking it's just me, I know around two dozen people who've seen it; and one who likes it.
shareThe characters of Gangs of New York were the best this side of No Country for Old Men. Daniel Day-Lewis was on fire in that movie and it gave him the juciest role he'd had for a decade. It was the movie that Leonardo Dicaprio broke through as a great in. It is a cynical take on that part of history, but to cynics like me it is refreshing. I could get into why it is my favorite Scorsese movie since Taxi Driver, but that would take more than I want to write. Suffice it to say, as someone who has tried his hand at acting and now occasionally tries to teach it, Day-Lewis, Dicaprio, and Brendan Gleeson give some of the best performances of any of his movies. Maybe No Country and Mystic River are the only two ensemble casts that compare this decade. But, being that this is an LA Confidential thread, I liked it more. The 90s was a decade of great movies, but LA Confidential is my favorite. Schindler's list may have been more important, but LA confidential was more enjoyable, and that is the reason I like Gangs over No Country for my movie of the decade.
shareHow did return of the king lack writing? The script was drafted from one of the greatest writers of all time! And on scope and scale Mystic Rivers a *beep* joke compared to ROTK.
Dear Warden, You were right. Salvation lies within.
This comment is the real joke. If scope was all it took then Waterworld would be an Oscar magnet. Mystic River had phenomenal acting and a tight plot that didn't take 45 minutes to end and, unlike LOTR, didn't have dialogue that would make Michael Bay embarrassed for the writer. It's not like it was a straight adaptation. Peter Jackson curiously added and subtracted from the books. The stuff he cut was better than all of his additions.
And while we're on the subject, with all due respect to JRR Tolkein for what he did for fantasy, he was not a great writer. George RR Martin *beep* better writing, though it does take forever for him to do it.
Stupid ass quote
[deleted]
"he was not a great writing."
Hmm i feel like you have no place to say Tolkien wasnt a great writer* haha. But seriously Return of the King is more than a movie. Its one of the greatest fantasies of all time. Whats gonna be remembered more in 10 years?
Dear Warden, You were right. Salvation lies within.
If you want to get into editing comments, how about some punctuation? And it depends on who's doing the remembering. If it's by people with the emotional depth of a puddle, as seemingly you are, I guess it is LOTR. But, by people who actually want more than dated CGI from their movies, Mystic River stands the test of time better. You can have Peter Jackson. And for that matter, take Michael Bay, Stephen Sommers, and McG, too.
And that goes for Titanic, too. Though, I enjoy Cameron's work by and large, he has no business winning anything other than technical awards. LA Confidential is the superior work, and good points brought up about Good Will Hunting and As Good as it Gets. I forgot about them being from that year, and they both are more meaningful movies than Titanic. Wow. Here's a hint, if a movie doesn't win best actor or actress, or a writing award, then it probably isn't the best picture.
I loved both titanic and LAC, but Return of the King (for me) was so incredibly boring, I left the theater about 2/3 through, went to a restaurant and ate, then came back and watched the end.
I probably would have liked it better forty years ago when I was in my twenties.
Coffee's for closers.
- the guy from Mitch and Murray (Alec Baldwin)
unrelated: Appreciate the use of the phrase "Streets Ahead."
heres my youtube check it out!
http://www.youtube.com/user/hayward1991/videos?view=0
"The Oscars have given up the right to be considered best picture because there are so many best pictures that are meant to send messages. I loved the Departed, but the only reason it won was as a lifetime achievement award to Martin Scorsese. Million Dollar Baby won as a way to make it up to Clint Eastwood for passing over Mystic River, and that is from the mouths of several voters."
That is about the dumbest thing I've ever read and I'll tell you why. Clint Eastwood won best picture and Best director for Unforgiven. So to me it doesn't matter that he didn't win for Mystic River and he shouldn't have won for Million Dollar Baby. But that's just my opinion. I mean how many Oscars does a person need!?
"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Costanza, Seinfeld
return of the king wasn't beaten by mystic river, it beat mystic river. and gangs was beat by chicago.
shareThe IMDB top 250 means nothing as far as TITANIC is concerned. There are many great films that are not on the list and many films on that list that shouldn't be there. I see TITANIC is back in the theatres and still drawing an audience and LA CONFIDENTAL is in the bargin racks at Best Buy. I'm just saying it was an epic event film that deserved to rewarded. And I don't sppreciate being called an I****.
shareThat example has no bearing on a film's quality. Michael Bay's Armageddon was an epic event as well - it made over $200 million and is constantly played on TV and viewed online. That does not mean it's better than Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho which I constantly see on sale for $5 or less on the bargain shelves.
I would have awarded Cameron for best director for that year because he did deserve some recognition - he changed the way modern CGI is used in film (for better or worse) - but when you stack up the writing, directing, production design, and acting of LAC against Titanic, there is no doubt in my mind that Titanic's one note romance story is nothing compared to the multi-layered, nuanced narrative that LAC provides.
So just because it was an event movie it deserved to win? Nice job.
shareto me, Good Will Hunting is the winner wiith this closely behind it
"Are You Watching Closely?"
LA CONFIDENTIAL should have won but Titanic is not undeserving
RETURN OF THE KING deserving winner in my honest opinion, 11 oscars is stretching it but it is not a travesty
Crash deserved it more than Brokeback Mountain but Capote was perhaps the best movie of the lot
LAC is a much better film, the only thing i dislike about it is that it's a little cheesy in places.
Titanic has some great visuals, and i did enjoy the "disaster-documentary" aspect of the film. The love affair is just unconvincing and contrived though IMO, and as that dominates the film, it kinda takes it down a peg or two.
"L.A. Confidential" may have lost the Oscar and Golden Globe Best Picture awards to "Titanic," but it is one of the few movies in history to be named best picture by the "big four" film critics' groups in the U.S. Also, "L.A. Confidential" received a Palme d'Or nomination at the Cannes film festival, which may be the most prestigious and elite film festival in the world. Needless to say, "Titanic" didn't.
Historically, "L.A. Confidential" is a very important modern movie for many reasons, whereas "Titanic" is important probably only because of its record-breaking box office gross and ground-breaking special effects. This is why a couple film classes I took as an undergrad watched, studied, and wrote about "L.A. Confidential," while "Titanic" was relegated to the status of a footnote.
The following is a quote lifted from a review on blu-ray.com that summarises my own thoughts about L.A. Confidential better than I ever could.
While teenage girls began to weep when Titanic's Jack Dawson slid beneath the icy waves, I began to weep when it was declared Best Picture at the 70th Academy Awards, handily leaving four more satisfying films -- As Good As It Gets, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting and, of course, director Curtis Hanson's pulpy tale of cops, corruption, and celebrity, L.A. Confidential -- gasping for air in its wake. Now I don't claim to understand what goes through an Academy voter's head when making their final selection, and I don't like to definitively declare one Oscar-nominated film's value over another, but, in this case, I have to cry foul. Everything about Hanson's golden era Hollywood epic, from its searing screenplay to its pitch-perfect performances to its sweltering cinematography, makes Titanic look superficial and inadequate. As a sprawling ensemble piece, it's a masterwork; as a tri-pronged character study, it's a stunning achievement; as a period film, it's a mesmerizing glimpse into the dark depths of a seemingly idyllic decade. Make no mistake, L.A. Confidential is one of the finest films of all time.
[deleted]