Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dirac

Oscar nominations announced

35 posts in this topic

I'm disappointed that A Very Long Engagement didn't make it in the foreign film category. It was nominated for cinematography, but somehow I doubt it will win. I won't mind so much if the other films receive the award, so long as it doesn't go to Phantom. :)

This is a year when I wish they could give out two best actor awards. Undoubtably it will go to Jamie Foxx, but Don Cheadle's performance in Hotel Rwanda simply cannot be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post

Old Fashioned, I haven't seen either Ray or Hotel Rwanda (although I think Don Cheadle has done such marvellous work in so many movies in the past), so forgive my cynicisim when I say that by Feb 27, we may all be so tired of the media yakking on and on about two - not just one, but count them, two - black actors being nominated, you may just be rooting for someone else.

Share this post


Link to post

I've already become a bit numbed by all the buzz that has surrounded Foxx, leaning slightly more in favor of Cheadle now (I've also always enjoyed Cheadle in whatever he did, thinking he's one of the most underrated actors today), even reading in the paper that Chris Rock said something about stealing an Oscar from someone else for Foxx if he doesn't win. This doesn't change my mind about him, I still love his tear-jerking performance in Ray- seeing those pictures of him sitting next to the Genius himself always brings a smile to my face- but I wish people would stop acting like the world is going to come to an end if he doesn't win and neither do I think being arrogant about it helps his image.

As for the other nominees in the category, I've never consider DiCaprio a competent actor, much less a great one (the Globe, IMO, should have gone to Cheadle). I love Depp, but I don't think this is his year. Haven't seen Million Dollar Baby, so no comment on Eastwood.

Share this post


Link to post

The link I provided wasn’t working, last time I checked. Here’s another:

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/oscars/news/apo...0669670000.html

There are always worthy performers and movies that don’t get nominated, but this year the omissions are particularly glaring, I think.

I liked “Ray” and I liked Foxx in it, but I won’t say Hewuzrobbed if he doesn’t get it. Old Fashioned, you are right -- I admit that I'm getting turned off by the tub thumping and the fact that Foxx is acting like a jerk. Sure, he was fine, but no better than others in that category (alas, many of them weren't nominated).

Best Supporting Actress: Where is Regina King (for “Ray”)? Where is Meryl? Either one of them could eat Natalie Portman for breakfast. Sheesh.

I'm prepared to defend DiCaprio. His performance in "The Aviator" didn't work, but it was because of his ineradicable boyishness, not a lack of acting chops. (Voice lessons might be in order, Leo.)

Delighted for Kate Winslet. I'm rooting for her, which means she'll probably lose.

Eastwood did not deserve a Best Actor nomination, but it helps to remember that the Oscars are also a kind of popularity contest, or election, and that may play a role here, no pun intended.

Share this post


Link to post

I also enjoyed Winslet in Eternal Sunshine, but my pick is Annette Bening. I was secretly hoping Fanny Ardant would get a nom for her portrayal of Callas in Callas Forever, but the film received so little attention I'm not suprised (the movie itself wasn't so hot, but Ardant was wonderful).

Share this post


Link to post

Art direction -- Lemony Snicket. They made a believable, and yet totally wonky world.

Share this post


Link to post

Old Fashioned, I thought Ardant was terrific in Callas Forever, too. Unfortunately, that’s just the kind of performance that will be under the Oscar radar: foreign actress, low profile foreign film that wasn’t that great, caused no buzz, made no money. It's too bad.

Share this post


Link to post

Well I'm prepared to defend di Caprio. Compared tothe vapid, embarrassing Ben Affleck or Brad Pitt di Caprio brings genuine charm, energy, and individuality to all his roles.

I'm disappointed that Uma wasnt nominated for Kill Bill. She kicked ass!

Also that "Control Room" wasnt nominated for Best Documentary.

I am however glad that Meryl Streep and Nicole Kidman werent nominated AGAIN.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, "Kill Bill" isn't what I would call an "Academy-friendly" picture. :D Lucy Liu was very good in the first installment, too.

Share this post


Link to post

While I always expect to be disappointed by the nominations, I was particularly disappointed that Paul Giamatti wasn't nominated for Best Actor for Sideways.

It's quite ironic coming after his Saturday Night Live appearance, where there was a skit where he played himself. His driver didn't know who he was, and kept going on and on about Foxx winning the Golden Globe (Giamatti was also nominated in that category). In his portrayal of himself, Giamatti is quite upset and frustrated by not winning. BUT, at least he got nominated!

-amanda

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect that political issues of various kinds may be involved in the apparent snub to Giamatti. However, Jeff Bridges (for The Door in the Floor, not a good movie but he was excellent), Jim Carrey, and Gael Garcia Bernal are in the same boat, so he’s in good company this year.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Dirac, Jeff Bridges should have had a shot. But look for more good stuff from him in 2005.

In my very humble and uninformed opinion, if Clint Eastwood was going to get nominated in acting for Million Dollar Baby, it should have been for supporting. That would have paved the way for either Giamatti or Bridges in the Best Actor category.

I haven't seen Ray yet, but I would bet on DiCaprio. The movie was overly long, however. Where are the editors?

Share this post


Link to post

I would have liked to have seen Javier Bardem nominated for The Sea Inside. I think of DiCaprio as sort of a junior version of Johnny Depp. Both very good looking leading man types who like to portray offbeat character parts.

Much as I love Kate Winslet I'm rooting for Annette Bening.

Vera Drake hasn't played here out here in the cultural boonies ( I happened to see The Sea Inside while out of town recently), has anyone seen it?

Share this post


Link to post

I’m afraid I did not much care for Vera Drake, but I am not a fan of Mike Leigh’s work in general and so it may be that. However, if it shows up in your area I would definitely see it. Now that the nominations are out, there’s a likelihood that it will be shown in more theatres. "The Sea Inside" was playing in my area, but only for two weeks, and I missed it.

The real mystery movie for me is “Being Julia.”

In my very humble and uninformed opinion, if Clint Eastwood was going to get nominated in acting for Million Dollar Baby, it should have been for supporting.

It will sometimes happen in Oscarland that a supporting performance is nominated in a leading category, and vice versa. Jamie Foxx, for example, had a co-starring role in “Collateral,” not a secondary one, and yet there he is. Usually this has to do with studio politicking – a performer who has no chance at Best Actor might win as a Best Supporting, depending upon the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post

David Edelstein comments on the recent announcement that this year Oscar winners in the technical categories will not be permitted to give an acceptance speech:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2113360/

While I agree with him that such a ban would indeed be deeply unfair and absurd, I part ways with him when he says that “it's painful to watch [the winners] —who should be permitted at least a long moment to bask—falling all over themselves to finish before they're unceremoniously drowned out and firmly ushered from the stage.” True, I guess, but I like lengthy acceptance speeches because they give me an opportunity to feel superior to the egomaniacal burbling of a Julia Roberts, or a Nicole Kidman who apparently can’t get from the subject of a sentence to its object without walking into a wall. Mean-spirited, I know.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, there were no surprises last night. The Academy took another turn at slapping around Martin Scorsese, who lost to yet another actor turned director. Hilary Swank cemented her position as the Luise Rainer of the new century and the Academy continued its recent tradition of dissing un-Botoxed middle aged actresses in favor of chicks in backless dresses – tough luck, Annette and Imelda. (And Hilary – Vivien Leigh and Bette Davis won two Oscars, too. Katharine Hepburn copped four. Did they bawl out thank yous to their lawyers and publicist? No, they did not! Think about it.)

I realize that in his later years Marlon Brando didn’t think much of the Oscars, but you would think in an evening that found time for tributes to Johnny Carson and Sidney Lumet, neither of whom had or has contributed much in the way of enduring value to the silver screen --gee, Lumet has really made a lot of mediocre movies, hasn't he? -- that the producers could have devoted more than a few seconds at the end of the annual Montage of Dead Folks to the man who was arguably the best American film actor of all time. Embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post

dirac, did you ignore Jamie Foxx's embarassing speech (can't even call it acceptance as he basically demanded that Oscar as his divine right) about looking forward to going to bed so he could talk to his grandmother because you thought it would be better to pretend like it never happened? :thumbsup:

My bright spot last night was seeing Kate Winslet in the front row either having a great time or being an extraordinary actor and acting like she was having a greta time. What charisma that woman has - and it doesn't hurt to wear a dress the colour of your eyes, especially when your eyes are bright blue!

Share this post


Link to post

The speech was silly, but for me it was just the capper on the whole recent Jamie Foxx fuss. Yes, he was very good. Other nominees were very good also, and let's not even get started on the guys who didn't make the cut.

I love Kate Winslet, and I love looking at Kate Winslet. I should hate her for the golden hair, translucent skin, incandescent smile, ability to wear that shade of blue without looking ridiculous, and for being remarkably gifted on top of that, but I don't.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the neglect of Carrey by the Academy has been pretty outrageous. It must have been especially hard for him this year, watching his former In Living Color colleague hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't stay up to watch all of it, but of what I did see what was most strange was the award for best costume I think it was, presented by Cate Blanchett(my favorite dress by the way). They presented it to the winners in the middle of an aisle for crying out loud! It's like saying, "hey, your nobody famous, so you can't come on stage to accept your award." It was odd.

I liked Chris Rock as host. Invite him back.

I love Renee Zellweger, I'll see just about any film she is in, but I have to say she looked awful. Of course she is too thin again, but that wasn't all of it. She looked drained, almost like the life was leached out of her. I wish her good health.

Share this post


Link to post

She's no thinner than most ballet dancers, or many of the other celebrities for that matter. I thought Zellweger looked fine, aside from the super-white make-up and dark hair.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, another year has passed during which I have seen but two films, so I can't discuss who deserved/didn't deserve their awards. I did think there were better dresses this year than most, Swank's topping the list. Blanchett's was also gorgeous, but it would have worked better if the "belt" had been less constructed -- slightly drapey, perhaps. The only outright disaster I saw (and it was a disaster of titanic proportions) was Melanie Griffiths.

I think the aisle presentations were, in all, a good idea for television, as they saved the time it would have taken for the winners to run up to the stage. But I take your point, perky, that it did put those categories into a second-class status.

Share this post


Link to post
They presented it to the winners in the middle of an aisle for crying out loud! It's like saying, "hey, your nobody famous, so you can't come on stage to accept your award." It was odd.

Some of you are probably too young to recall a game show called “Let’s Make a Deal.” Briefly, it involved a host, Monty Hall, who wandered amidst the audience and selected lucky audience members to play the game. That’s just what it was like. I also felt sorry for other unimportant personages, like the costume designers, who had to line up on stage and then get herded off when they lost.

On the topic of actresses and weight, while Old Fashioned is correct in noting that they were no skinnier than usual, I agree with perky that they’re thinner than they should be. The gowns seem to be more and more similar these days; the actresses are so frightened of the fashion police, and justly so, that they hew to a very conservative line. So conservative were the frocks on display, in fact, that I would not have been surprised if they had been wearing corsets – some of them looked poured into the dresses.

Carbro, you didn’t miss much this time. Not that there were no good films, but all in all it was not a good year for movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0