@rudely_murray said:

Manchester by the Sea is my favourite of those I've seen (haven't seen Lion or Hacksaw Ridge) but Moonlight is something of a breath of fresh air, a genuinely moving, beautifully shot film. I'd certainly consider it one of the strongest winners of the new millennium so far and add that Barry Jenkins deserved the Best Director Oscar for his work on the movie, which managed the tricky balancing act of being eye-catching and with a distinctive voice yet managing not to be posey or self-conscious. I am very happy that it won, a landmark win, really.

... stated excellently. Although I did not like Manchester by the Sea as much as you did (having viewed the film twice, I do consider it "good/very good," though, and one of the year's nine-to-twelve best films), I appreciate your thoughts and your refined grasp of Moonlight.

@Aylmer said:

I couldn't make it through much of Moonlight, so I can't comment on it, wasn't a fan of LaLaLand - so I'd say, no, Moonlight didn't deserve the Oscar for best anything. My personal favorite and one of the few films made this century worthy of a Best Picture Oscar was "Manchester by the Sea"

Ugh. La La Land was the worst musical that I've ever seen. The skill in the choreography for the musical numbers were like for kids and the song lyrics were boring. Just a lack of talent. Emma wasn't that impressive either.

The Academy was obviously seeking ratings by nominating that film so much. Best Director? Unbelievable. The Academy really disappointed me this year. They've gone political and pandered to mainstream audiences which was a huge mistake.

@virics said:

I agree the Oscars is basically just a popularity contest. But that's still worth discussing, because the judges' decisions are definitely affected by public opinion and the political climate. So it's inevitable that people would associate this year's results with OscarsSoWhite. And that's a shame because it's doing no one any good.

This isn't 1940s anymore. The US just had a black president for 8 years. I think people of any race should call out the bullshit of blatant identity politics movements like OscarsSoWhite. Identity politics is racism marketed in a different way. Racism will only cease to exist if we stop caring about race.

You do recognize that Donald Trump played "identity politics" more than anyone, right? And that the Grand Old Party has been playing "identity politics" for over fifty years now?

They do not call it "identity politics," but that is what it is.

Anyway, we can recognize the role that race plays in society yet seek to never be defined by it.

@virics said:

@SunParakeet said:

I don't think we have the same definition of racism. How can OscarsSoWhite be racist?

**Because it leads to people being awarded for their skin color instead of their merit just to satisfy the "diversity goal". **And that won't do them any good because the achievement of people of that certain skin color will be tainted by it, just like the case of Moonlight.

... that is not "racist" so much as "misguided," which I agree the "Oscars So White" controversy happened to be. And we do not know that it actually led to anyone being awarded based on skin color, just that it created an unfortunate perception in that regard.

@mechajutaro said:

@CraigJamesReview said:

I don't think it was a response to the Oscars so white controversy at all. This was a film that spoke volumes about the problems facing black men growing up in these types of areas- the lack of a role model, the only real options being drugs or death, the need to be like everyone else for fear of being singled out as different, the lack of self expression- and this film was done not by a Hollywood elite getting on a soap box but from a director who puts all these things out there without being preachy whatsoever. It's a remarkable accomplishment. Not sure why it is getting such backlash. I did a whole review on youtube on it if anyone is interested-https://youtu.be/mfTEbJWweOk

Sadly, merely reading a synopsis of such a film("The main character is gay, black, and persecuted. And the drama doesn't stop till the credits roll.") and being subsequently overwrought with cynicism has become a matter of muscle memory for several million viewers , viewers who've been bludgeoned with the paternalism masquerading as "advocacy" that's been spewed out across The Silver Screen for several decades now. Not deeming Moonlight to be an example of such myself, mind you, as I've haven't seen the movie. As a filmgoer, I can understand completely the chorus of groans that have accompanied the mere description of the movie nonetheless....

... sure, but that just means that people are lazy. If one is not willing to see the film at least once, then one should not prejudge it and make that presumption.

@Heisenberg12 said:

@PipedUpMovies said:

I have not watched either La La Land or Moonlight but I am seeing a lot of negative reviews for Moonlight on IMDB (although the overall rating is high). In normal circumstances, I would not question the winner that much, and I would certainly not look at the actors' and directors' skin colour, but coming a year after the OscarsSoWhite (in my opinion, pointless and stupid) movement, I can't help feeling that Moonlight's win is a sop to 'diversity'. Look, look, they're black. AND homosexual. How amazing! Heterosexual whites and their strange reproductive ways are being put in the their place!

Anyway, as I said, this would not be my normal reaction. Some of my favourite cinematic moments involve blacks or homosexuality but OscarsSoWhite has left a sour taste in my mouth and in my opinion will sully Moonlight's win because it makes it feel like a participation trophy to blacks instead of a real win.

I wonder what people who have watched La La Land and Moonlight think.

No. Everyone knows why it won.

I don't even care anymore. The Oscars have officially become a joke. They clearly don't want to be taken seriously anymore. I just don't take it seriously. Everyone knows what the best movies REALLY were. Let the voters get their political agendas out though, and everyone has to get a trophy because they're black and gay. Affirmative Action twofold. What they basically told the film world is: "forget if your movie is the best or not, but just make it about blacks in the ghetto and you're guaranteed award nominations and award attention. Better yet, make it about being black AND GAY, and you automatically win the best picture Oscar by default. Now, let's go home." If Mel Gibson made Desmond Doss black, he would have doubled his chances at best pic. Black AND gay, he'd be a lock and shoe in for it.

Have you actually seen Moonlight? Along with Sully, it is simply one of the two best films of the year in my opinion—calling it an "affirmative action" choice does a disservice to the movie and the human intellect.

If anything represented "affirmative action," it might have La La Land—Hollywood engaging in affirmative action on behalf of itself.

@Heisenberg12 said:

And this is just your perception or perspective. Black movies weren't good for decades, and overall they're still not.

I hope the NBA protests next year that no whites win MVP awards and there's not enough white players in the league. Then, quality of play will diminish likewise, too. You need to get some perspective. Just because your skin color, it doesn't make you good or the best.

The NBA MVP Award has gone to a white player six times since the '83-'84 season and three times since the '04-'05 season. Regardless, trying to use athletic standards as an analogy for artistic standards is patently absurd.

As for "black movies" not being "good overall," one could easily argue that two of the three best films of 2016 were "black movies": Moonlight and Fences. Also, 12 Years a Slave easily constituted the best film of 2013. I am not sure what "good overall" means.

Get a grip, man. The caliber of the film depends upon the people involved irrespective of race, and you are the one who comes across as the racist.

@Stratego! said:

Why both? It's an AWARD show. It's not a platform for political statements, it's to show appreciation for the talents and efforts of those in the industry. They're not politicians. And how convenient none of us can say anything back. **How about if I'm going to make political statements at a meeting or presentation at my work? My boss or colleagues won't be happy with that. **And let's be real, someone expressing support for the current president is a political statement that would not be accepted by those applauding Meryl Streep's statements.

Right, it is an awards show, so they are not really "at work" ... there is no boss there.

@KingCobra686 said:

My vote is for La La Land. I hate musicals but I really liked that movie.

Moonlight was good, but it really wasnt that compelling. The main character spent the whole movie moping around and being sad while he goes through a depressing life. *The tone of the movie was a static line throughout with no real climax or changes at any point. At the start of the movie he is this lonely kid and at the end of the movie he is this lonely guy. *

Both movies were pure Oscarbait for sure. High production value musical circlejerk about white people chasing the Hollywood dream vs gay black mans depressing story in the hood.

... I would not say that Moonlight's mood is "static." There are changes, but they are subtle. I would not describe the guy as "moping," either—again, the film is more nuanced than that.

@joekiddlouischama said:

@Heisenberg12 said:

And this is just your perception or perspective. Black movies weren't good for decades, and overall they're still not.

I hope the NBA protests next year that no whites win MVP awards and there's not enough white players in the league. Then, quality of play will diminish likewise, too. You need to get some perspective. Just because your skin color, it doesn't make you good or the best.

The NBA MVP Award has gone to a white player six times since the '83-'84 season and three times since the '04-'05 season. Regardless, trying to use athletic standards as an analogy for artistic standards is patently absurd.

As for "black movies" not being "good overall," one could easily argue that two of the three best films of 2016 were "black movies": Moonlight and Fences. Also, 12 Years a Slave easily constituted the best film of 2013. I am not sure what "good overall" means.

Get a grip, man. The caliber of the film depends upon the people involved irrespective of race, and you are the one who comes across as the racist.

Cut the B.S. The movie sucked.

Nobody would watch this again unless they were gay. Period. It's political nonsense and pretentious overrated crap. $1 crap DVD bin at Best Buy material. It doesn't deserve Best Picture, and really doesn't even deserve to be nominated, but then again, neither do most movies of the Oscars.

"Cut the B.S. The movie sucked.

Nobody would watch this again unless they were gay. Period. It's political nonsense and pretentious overrated crap ..."

Sorry, but this is such silly, trollish, un-insightful, snd belligerent comment, and curiously coming from someone who praises Hacksaw Ridge, a film (partially) about a deeply religous objector to war & violence ....

Cut the B.S. The movie sucked.

Nobody would watch this again unless they were gay. Period. It's political nonsense and pretentious overrated crap. $1 crap DVD bin at Best Buy material. It doesn't deserve Best Picture, and really doesn't even deserve to be nominated, but then again, neither do most movies of the Oscars.

smh and experiencing second hand embarrassment for you.

@MrsBuckyBarnes said:

Cut the B.S. The movie sucked.

Nobody would watch this again unless they were gay. Period. It's political nonsense and pretentious overrated crap. $1 crap DVD bin at Best Buy material. It doesn't deserve Best Picture, and really doesn't even deserve to be nominated, but then again, neither do most movies of the Oscars.

smh and experiencing second hand embarrassment for you.

The movie sucked. Nobody would ever have any reason to ever watch it again except for gay black people. It's just a political statement by Hollywood. It's not good.

@NoVaNY-Cinematico said:

"Cut the B.S. The movie sucked.

Nobody would watch this again unless they were gay. Period. It's political nonsense and pretentious overrated crap ..."

Sorry, but this is such silly, trollish, un-insightful, snd belligerent comment, and curiously coming from someone who praises Hacksaw Ridge, a film (partially) about a deeply religous objector to war & violence ....

You can't handle the truth can you?

The movie wasn't good. It certainly wasn't BP worthy. But the thing I go by is who would even have any desire to watch it again? Answer: Nobody. Nobody but gays. That's it. It's a joke. I wouldn't pay 1 penny to own this on DVD. Same with Manchester by the Sea. That's even worse than this. That's a movie for people who want to kill themselves or something- who like to see the dark side of life. How depressing. Pretentious crap passed off as a good movie and the sheep believe the hype like this POS.

"The movie wasn't good. It certainly wasn't BP worthy. But the thing I go by is who would even have any desire to watch it again? Answer: Nobody. Nobody but gays...."

I assume you've conducted a scientific survey supported by an accredited university to support your statement. 🤔

Assuming that only a particular population would watch this, or any other movie, a second time, how does that correlate to the quality of the film? Perhaps that population is smarter than the rest 🤔.

Friendly advice: mean-spiritedness, including homophobia, is not good for ones mind & body.