Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Oscars

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vault-emort
    replied
    WOW!!!

    I can see this thread joining the locked drugs threads soon!
    Whoda thunk movies could be so contentious on a track board??

    Personally I liked Dark Knight and thought Heath's performance was incredible. Especially when compared to Jack Nicholson's award-nominated Joker performance from 20 years ago. Nicholson's Joker was a caricature compared to Ledger. The rest of the movie was ok (and I thought maybe deserving of a best pic nom) but coulda been better.

    I have great hopes for another comic book movie to be released in a coupla months - Watchmen - but condensing the GOAT graphic novel (and one of Time Magazine's "Greatest 100 Novels") into a 2 hour movie means it may not come off. Here's hoping that in a year's time people on here are debating its' Academy Award noms (at least for opening titles which I understand are incredible).

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    I see about one movie per week. Some how, I have not seen a single nominated movie and only a couple of those with nominees for individual awards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flumpy
    replied
    I think for the 1st time in about a decade I'll be able to see all of the main nommed films before the actual ceremony. Almost everything is coming out in UK over the next couple of weeks and will be in NYC the week before so hopefully can catch Frozen River somewhere.

    Not particularly impressed with what I've seen so far.

    Leave a comment:


  • bijanc
    replied
    Winslett Good Dilemma

    Thanks for the explanation. It dawned on me over the wknd. that she couldn't have been nominated for both, and stood a better chance being bumped down to a Supporting category, although she was a lead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flumpy
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Flumpy
    1 - Why does Batman have such a stupid voice?
    2 - Seeing as none of them have any 'super powers' how come everybody seems to be able to jump of tall building, survive explosions, appear out of nowhere etc
    3 - Why are the police so completely incompetent. They have The Joker in prison so how does he manage to not only escape but lay waste to the whole police headquarters whilst doing so? How does he manage to appear in the hospital with a full face of makeup and go under cover as a doctor when he's the most wanted man in the city? How does he manage to rig up the whole hospital with bombs despite only having escaped a few hours earlier.? How does he know which boats are going to be used to evacuate prisoners? How is this one mortal man able to bamboozle the whole of the US armed forces?
    4 - Who is he? Where did he come from? Why is he doing any of this? THe Joker has absolutely no motivation for doing what he does. Or at least none that we're told about!!!
    5 - WTF was the Harvey Dent/ 2 Face nonsense about? Who on earth after getting blow up and losing half their face goes on a revenge spree??? I think he would have had trouble getting to the toilet without help.
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Shooting fish in a barrel . . . :roll:
    1. It is electronically distorted (by a mechanism in the costume's neck) so no one can take a voice print and match it to Bruce Wayne's
    Fine. I've never seen a Batman film before(And won't be watching another one) so I wouldn't have known that. Actually I have seen Batman Returns. If anyone deserved a nom for such a film it was Michelle Pfieffer. MIAOW!!!

    Originally posted by Marlow
    2. The exact same way Parkour people do it (think Casino Royale)
    I have absolutey no idea what that mean. I haven't seen Casino Royale and I have no plans to so. Even so it doesn't answer my question.

    Originally posted by Marlow
    3. Were you not paying attention?! He got the cop to want to beat him and then tricked him (he's the JOKER, remember?) into thinking he was handcuffed, when he had already freed himself.
    You're right wasn't paying attention. I was so bored by this point I was reading my T&FN Rankings edition (Sanya over TBO!!! WTF). Because I hadn't a clue that was going on I actually rewound this bit and watched it again and do you know what? I still had no idea what wasgoing on. IT MAKES NO SENSE. Maybe he did trick the guard or something but that doesn't explain how he escapes and blows the whole place up. And as for my other question you haven't answered them.

    Originally posted by Marlow
    4. Again, not paying attention. He's an anarchist. He does this for fun - a challenge. He's clearly psychotic, so needs no reason to do anything. His 'back story' is intentionally not revealed, so he can tell everyone a different story on why he has facial scars.
    Obviously he's insane but that's not good enough. It's just lazy writing. He may well tell everyone a different version but we're the audience at least we couldbe given some kind of explanation.

    Originally posted by Marlow
    5. He lost half his face. He snapped. **It happens. :twisted:
    You're right it could happen but not without months of rehabilition and lot of morphine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flumpy
    replied
    Double Post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flumpy
    replied
    Re: Wither Winslet

    Originally posted by bijanc
    I saw Winslet in both "The Reader" and "Revolutionary Road". Why did critics and entert. reporters on the network morning news shows say she would have rather been nominated for the latter?
    Unlike the BAFTA's an actor can only be nominated once per category at the Oscars, therefore there was no possibility of Kate being nominated in the Best Actress category for both The Reader and RR.

    In order to maximse her chances and try and garnerher 2 Oscar noms the producers of The Reader have been campaigning for her to nominated in the Supporting category for this film. Despite being obvious category fraud (There is no way she would have been placed there if he only had the 1 film out) she was thus nominated at the GG's + SAG and various other critics awards. When nominating though Academy members chose to ignore what they had been encouraged to do and righly placed her in the lead category. Everybody was surprised because she was supposed to get a lead nom for RR and a supporting for TR but this didn't happen.

    This is a rare occurance.The last example would be in '03 when Keisha Castle Hughes was nommed in lead when she had been campaigned for supporting despite clerly being the main character in the film.

    I they said she would have preffered to be nommed for the latter I think they mean because then she could have garnered 2 noms. As it is the Academy have done her a favour. If she had gained 2 nominations she was highly unlikely to have won the Lead actress award but could very well have been palmed of with the supporting as a consolation prize. Now that she is only in contention for BA's she's the favourite.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flumpy
    replied
    Re: Wither Winslet

    Originally posted by bijanc
    I saw Winslet in both "The Reader" and "Revolutionary Road". Why did critics and entert. reporters on the network morning news shows say she would have rather been nominated for the latter?
    Unlike the BAFTA's an actor can only be nominated once per category at the Oscars, therefore there was no possibility of Kate being nominated in the Best Actress category for both The Reader and RR.

    In order to maximse her chances and try and garnerher 2 Oscar noms the producers of The Reader have been campaigning for her to nominated in the Supporting category for this film. Despite being obvious category fraud (There is no way she would have been placed there if he only had the 1 film out) she was thu nominate at the GG's + SAG and various other critics awards. When nominating though Academy members chose to ignore what they had been encouraged to do and righly placed her in the lead category. Everybody was surprised because she was supposed to get a lead nom for RR an a supporting for TR but thisdidn't happen.

    This doesn't often happen.The last example would be in '03 whenKeiha Castle Hughes was nommed in lead when he had been campaigned for supporting despite clerly being the main character in the film.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flumpy
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    kate winslett ( as with every other brit actress with aspirations ) shoud pray to her little shrine of ralph ffienes in her back room

    his ole magic worked once again !

    all any reasonably well known brit actress has to do to get an oscar nomination is to find a semi-pretentious nonsense film, have a part in it & insists the producer/director get ralph to star in it

    the academy seems to think any brit actress in any of his pretentious nonsense films MUST at least get a nomination...
    Out of the 44 (Make it 45 if you include Naomi Watts) British actresses to be nominated for acting Academy Awards since he came to prominence in 1993 precisely 3 have been starring in a film with Ralph Fiennes.

    Really good point eldy :roll:

    Leave a comment:


  • mojo
    replied
    Of course awards like Oscars etc. mean a lot to the studio companies and the future salaries and profiles of the actors, crew etc. but in the end judging "art" is so highly personal that who should get what just isn't worth arguing about.

    I find the Oscars to be pretty boring these days (bring back the streaker!).

    I do read reviews but just to get a gist of what a movie is like and if it is universally panned then I will wait for come out on video if the subject matter does interest me. We only go to maybe 4 movies a year in a theater so I want them to be good ones.

    If I like a movie that is all that matters to me. 8-)

    I won't go to 90% of the IMHO crap out there.

    Leave a comment:


  • bijanc
    replied
    Wither Winslet

    I saw Winslet in both "The Reader" and "Revolutionary Road". Why did critics and entert. reporters on the network morning news shows say she would have rather been nominated for the latter?

    Leave a comment:


  • jhc68
    replied
    I'm thinking that none of the movies nominated are really strong enough to be designated as Best of the year (and I agree with Marlow that Milk and Frost/Nixon are purely Hollywood politically correct designees).

    But I'm darned if I know what movie DOES deserve the BEST of 2008 honor.

    Dark Knight? Yes, Ledger was terrific: a manic, riveting character like we haven't seen since Jack Nicholson was young and energized (or was he just doped up?). But IMHO, without Ledger Dark Knight absolutely sucked. The only reason to keep watching the film is anticipation of when Ledger will next appear. And Cooter's and Flumpy's lists of plot holes and perplexing aspects of the plot barely scratch the surface.

    There are some interesting human dilemmas presented in the Dark Kniight. But those aspects are undermined by silliness of the fantastic logistics and pace of all those tedious explosions, and the armies of nameless idiots the Joker somehow recruits to send on his various suciide missions, it all gets old very quickly ...... in total, Dark Knight surpasses a Dr. Who episode in requiring an absolute suspension of credibility. And Dr. Who can be forgiven since it is only intended as light weight fun with no pretension of being the Best of anything at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Novitiate
    replied
    Re: The Oscars

    Originally posted by Marlow
    POLITICAL, i.e., Zero Box Office (and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz-inducing) films like Frost/Nixon and Milk cleaned up.:
    I thought Frost/Nixon was superb. I've been warned by friends who know me not to see the Dark Knight - apparently it IS dark. I couldn't stomach 7 or Seven or whatever that wretched obsession with gore starring Kevin Spacey and poor Gwyneth's head was called. Thank God Mama Mia isn't nominated - now THAT was a colossal snooze.

    Originally posted by Marlow
    The Box Office doesn't lie
    Plenty of people thought Madonna should have won for Evita; I was not among them. The Golden Globs did give her a big piece of bling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    Originally posted by Marlow
    That kinda makes discourse obsolete and renders a 'forum' pointless!
    Why? In matters of likes and dislikes, there doesn't have to be a justification of it. I like something and say it, you like something else and say it. Exchange of ideas, isn't it?
    OK, but where's the fun in that? Aren't we supposed to bludgeon each other over the head with our unimpeachable authority??!! :twisted:

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    I think the only thing Marlow could be accused of is a belief that when it comes to movie reviews he is farier than most. A view that i happen to agree with. I would only add if he wants to be considered a truely serious critic of movies than like a doctor he has to endure some really gut wrenching moments like Shindler's list.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X