posted
I'm not surprised it didn't get a best actor nom, but I wish they'd have nominated Sean Astin for best supporting. That makes me really sad.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
It would be hard to say who was the lead in that movie. Of course, in my little world they could have nominated multiple actors for best actor and multiple actors for best supporting actor. That happens, right? I guess if the film wins Best Director and Best Picture, that would be pretty good.
posted
Personally, I was glad that "Seabiscuit" got a nomination. I don't think it appeared on anyone's list of probably nominees. But it was one of my personal favorites of the year.
I don't expect it to win and don't know if it deserves to. It deserves the recognition of being a nominee for best picture, though.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The worst thing is that ROTK didn't get mentioned for the best supporting actor, but Alec Baldwin did! I mean, I haven't seen the film, but this is Alec Baldwin. How good could he be?
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seabiscuit thoroughly disappointed me. I mean, it just did not move me at all. And I was surprised, I was really looking forward to it.
I think Depp's nomination is well-deserved.
It should be an interesting night, to see if the Academy really will give Jackson the best director oscar.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, I'm guessing if ROTK gets best picture, they'll give Best Director to Clint Eastwood. If they don't, and Mystic River gets Best Picture, then PJ will get Best Director. To me, it's a real battle between what the Oscars usually love (small, dramatically-centered movies) and hate (or at least love less: big, huge, lumbering movies.) Remember that Saving Private Ryan, a big huge war movie, lost to Shakespeare in Love, a relatively small dramatic movie that now is looking pretty light weight.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My feeling is that LOTR is a lock for both Best Picture and Best Director at this point. They've dominated the critics awards up till now.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Remember that Saving Private Ryan, a big huge war movie, lost to Shakespeare in Love, a relatively small dramatic movie that now is looking pretty light weight.
I don't know if this is a good comparison. Many (most?) people would still rather watch Shakespeare in Love that SPR.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am also bummed about Sean Astin, but I thought that Peter Dinklage would be nominated for Best Actor in The Station Agent.
As for LOTR, I hope they sweep everything except Best Adapted Screenplay. Don't get me wrong, I thought they did an incredible job adapting the impossible story to the screen, but I feel that American Splendor was a more interesting adaptation from the original source.
Just my 2 cents.
Posts: 115 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'm just thrilled to se Djimon Honsou up there for Best Supporting Actor, and Samantha Monson up for Best Actress -- both from IN AMERICA.
Go. See. This. Movie.
--
In previous years, I'd be complaining if the actor/film I thought was BEst Picture wasn't nominated. But then again, most of the time I hadn't even SEEN the other nommed films, so I had no point of reference.
This year I've made a special effort to keep up with the Awards Race, and tried to watch as many of the leading contenders as I could track down.
And I have to say, it was a TOUGH year. There were so many wonderful films and fantastic performances that someone I liked was bound (heh) to have been left out.
The Oscars are so much more enjoyable if you actually KNOW what's going on
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The girl from Whale Rider is the youngest person ever to be nominated for the Best Actress award. I'd really like to see her win, but I think it's kind of a long shot.
I *really* want Johnny Depp to win, but it'll probably go to either Sean Penn or the other guy....I can't remember his name, but they couldn't stop talking about the competition between the two of them.
And it is *very* rare that the Best Picture and Best Director don't go to the same film. I'm putting my money on LOTR.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The worst thing is that ROTK didn't get mentioned for the best supporting actor, but Alec Baldwin did! I mean, I haven't seen the film, but this is Alec Baldwin. How good could he be?
I haven't seen it either, but come on. Alec Baldwin is an awesome actor. Ever seen Glengarry Glen Ross ? The Hunt For Red October ? Sure, he's done some crap, but so has Sean Astin. I'm thinking about Encino Man and the made for tv movie version of Harrison Bergeron.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glengarry Glen Ross is on my list of worst movies ever to be even thought of. It was a cussword fest based on the premise that excessive foul language is "realistic" and "daring." It think it still has the record for most times "f*ck" is said in a single movie, something like over 3000 times.
posted
Yeah, I suppose if you're the sort of person who gets offended by words, then you probably wouldn't enjoy it.
On the other hand, it has some of the best actors of the last couple of decades doing their best performances of the 90's.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I was very pleasantly surprised with these nominations this year. It seems ROTK is the obvious choice.
AND...yay for Johnny Depp! He probably won't win this one either, but so long as Bill Murray doesn't win again I'm ok with it. (I haven't seen Lost in Translation, but he's still Bill Murray. How good could he be?)
posted
Andy Serkis deserves recognition. His portrayal of Gollum was one of the most convincing, real performances I have seen in a long time. Of course, I realize that Hollywood will never recognize a performance where the actor's makeup happens to be generated by the a computer. What a shame.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, this thread was started about an hour and a half after yours. It's on page 2 with one reply, and it doesn't even have any links to other online sources. Yours just blows the competition away. The only thing that could hurt you now would be a particularly vicious Dobie, but I don't see that happening.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
<--- Found the movie too long, but had a cold at the time of watching, not to mention there's a lot of stuff in those books O.o Thought it was excellent otherwise.
quote: I don't know if this is a good comparison. Many (most?) people would still rather watch Shakespeare in Love that SPR.
I would rather watch anything than SPR. We watched it on the bus once on the way to the D-Day Museum, and I tried to tune it out and read Children of the Mind in peace, but--I swear to God--every time I looked up, someone was getting a limb blown off. Or a head. Ew.
posted
For those of us who honestly can't figure how a movie can be BEST without having good acting... Aaargh. They should get a special ensemble Oscar, like Saving Private Ryan's group should have.
quote: Alec Baldwin is an awesome actor. Ever seen Glengarry Glen Ross ? The Hunt For Red October?
quote:Glengarry Glen Ross is on my list of worst movies ever to be even thought of. It was a cussword fest based on the premise that excessive foul language is "realistic" and "daring." It think it still has the record for most times "f*ck" is said in a single movie, something like over 3000 times.
quote:Yeah, I suppose if you're the sort of person who gets offended by words, then you probably wouldn't enjoy it.
Glengarry Glen Ross is the foulest movie I've ever had the misfortune to watch and I didn't even REMEMBER that it had swearing in it. It was nothing but people abusing each other, and trying to win by stomping everyone else down. It was the most depressing portrayal of a wrong and ugly response to human desperation I've ever seen and I came out of the cinema feeling like someone had tied me in a chair and glued my eyes open and made me watch them abuse a child.
If that was what the director was going for, he did a brilliant job, but I just don't feel like that much effort and talent should go into telling such an utterly worthless story. Actually not worthless, worse than worthless - harmful, damaging to the heart and mind.
Having said that, can I just add that Alec Baldwin was PHENOMENAL in The Hunt for Red October and that his portrayal of Jack Ryan was much closer to the original character in the books than was that of Harrison Ford in the subsequent movies. (not that Harrison didn't act the part well, he just wasn't the Jack Ryan of the books.)
posted
I agree about the Jack Ryan part. To me, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck (gag) played completely different characters that happened to have the same name. I didn't even associate them with the character in HfRO.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Glengarry Glen Ross is the foulest movie I've ever had the misfortune to watch and I didn't even REMEMBER that it had swearing in it. It was nothing but people abusing each other, and trying to win by stomping everyone else down. It was the most depressing portrayal of a wrong and ugly response to human desperation I've ever seen and I came out of the cinema feeling like someone had tied me in a chair and glued my eyes open and made me watch them abuse a child.
Interesting. Though my reaction to the movie wasn't quite so strong, you just described the exact reasons why I liked it.