|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 153 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 8 of 153:
| 
Jan 31 20:05 UTC 2006 |
It sure looked real.
|
cross
|
|
response 9 of 153:
|
Jan 31 21:16 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 10 of 153:
|
Jan 31 21:24 UTC 2006 |
Well, Bill is an old salt. I wouldn't want to question his expertise.
;)
|
johnnie
|
|
response 11 of 153:
|
Jan 31 21:36 UTC 2006 |
"Best Supporting Actor" for Clooney? I haven't seen Syriana, but my
impression from ads and publicity was that he was the lead.
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 153:
|
Jan 31 21:47 UTC 2006 |
Matt Damon is the main character.
|
twenex
|
|
response 13 of 153:
|
Jan 31 21:54 UTC 2006 |
<in a whinging voice> Matt DAMON!
|
richard
|
|
response 14 of 153:
|
Jan 31 22:49 UTC 2006 |
I was a bit disappointed that King Kong didn't get any major awards. It got
rave reviews, was the best reviewed movie of the year, but I think it was
punished for being a remake. They award originality more than remaking old
movies. Also a $200 million monster movie isn't exactly seen as serious
subject matter. It was easily one of the five best movies of the year IMO,
it should have been nominated. Poor Peter Jackson, I mean I'm not sure
there's any way he could have made the movie better than it was. He did it
as well as it could be done, they just weren't going to nominate a movie
called "King Kong" for best picture...
|
richard
|
|
response 15 of 153:
|
Feb 1 01:30 UTC 2006 |
Okay lets start with the predictions. Here's mine:
BEST PICTURE
I'd have a hard time choosing between "Brokeback Mountain" and "Good
Night and Good Luck", but I predict "Brokeback Mountain" will win.
BEST ACTOR
All the nominated performances were great. I'd vote for Philip Seymour
Hoffman, because he was amazing, and I think he'll get it. Even the
reclusive Harper Lee, who I didn't even know was still alive, raved
about his performance, and she knew Capote and was portrayed in the
movie.
BEST ACTRESS--
Regrettably I have only seen one nominated performance in this
category, that of Reese Witherspoon in "Walk the Line" She's heavily
favored to win and deserves it.
BEST DIRECTOR
They got it right this year, they nominated the same five guys for Best
Director who they nominated their film for Best Picture. It always
annoys me when something gets nominated for Best Picture and the
director doesn't get nominated. How do you make one of the five best
pictures of the year and NOT have done one of the five best directing
jobs of the year.
I've already stated I'd vote for Ang Lee. But if they are
giving "Brokeback Mountain" best picture, I predict they'll give
somebody else best director, to spread the glory so to speak. I
predict George Clooney will win for "Good Night and Good Luck", because
that film isn't going to get the acting awards or best picture and
they'll want to give it something big.
BEST DOCUMENTARY
March of the Penguins will win. The other nominees are also deserving,
but face it, many more voters have seen this than the others.
SUPPORTING ACTOR
If they're giving Clooney director and screenplay, they aren't likely
to give him three trophies. So even though I'd vote for Clooney here,
I predict Paul Giamatti will win for "Cinderella Man"
SUPPORTING ACTRESS
I really liked Catherine Keener as Harper Lee in "Capote" but her part
was too small. I'd vote for Michelle Williams for "Brokeback Mountain"
and if the movie has momentum going in, she'll get it.
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Larry McMurtry and Diana Osana have won this category on the other
awards for "Brokeback Mountain" and they deserve it.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
As stated earlier, I think Clooney will win for "Good Night and Good
Luck", which I'd also vote for.
What are YOUR picks>?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 16 of 153:
|
Feb 1 01:34 UTC 2006 |
Well, a Jackson-directed movie nearly swept the Oscars just a few years
ago ("Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King"), which might also have
had something to do with it. In theory, of course, every movie and
performance should be judged on its own merits. In practice, however,
there's ample evidence to suggest that that's not the way academy members
vote in real life. (Exhibit A to support this hypothesis, I believe, would
be Al Pacino's award for playing Foghorn Leghorn in "Scent of a Woman".)
|
klg
|
|
response 17 of 153:
|
Feb 1 02:04 UTC 2006 |
So, once again, we see why it should be called the Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Politics.
|
furs
|
|
response 18 of 153:
|
Feb 1 02:26 UTC 2006 |
well, duh!
|
kingjon
|
|
response 19 of 153:
|
Feb 1 02:41 UTC 2006 |
Politics was once defined to me as something like "what human beings
do when together" -- that is, that every activity involving at least
two people is necessarily political.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 20 of 153:
|
Feb 1 02:44 UTC 2006 |
>I was a bit disappointed that King Kong didn't get any major awards.
It >got rave reviews, was the best reviewed movie of the year,
My impression was that it got decent--not rave or best--reviews. At any
rate, there's a big difference between a movie getting five stars
because it was enteretaining as all get out, and getting five stars
because it was well-acted, intellectually stimulating, beautifully shot,
and so on. The latter is what gets nominated for Oscars.
>I'd vote for Philip Seymour Hoffman
Gotta go with the guy with the great name, even if he doesn't spell it
correctly.
>How do you make one of the five best pictures of the year and NOT have
>done one of the five best directing jobs of the year.
Sometimes the whole is better than the individual parts, and vice versa.
And one could easily ask, "How do you make one of the best pictures and
NOT have the best (actors/screenplay/costumes/whatever)?" The director
is not the sole contributor.
|
twenex
|
|
response 21 of 153:
|
Feb 1 08:26 UTC 2006 |
Technically, LOTR was a remake, too. Though at least they made ALL of it this
time.
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 153:
|
Feb 1 15:16 UTC 2006 |
re #21 it was not a remake, they weren't remaking the cartoon movie. It was
the first live action lord of the rings movie trilogy.
|
richard
|
|
response 23 of 153:
|
Feb 1 16:42 UTC 2006 |
Of course the Academy never explains why they separate the acting categories
by gender, and not the other categories. You have "best actress", but not
"best director-ess" and "best scriptwriter-ess" I guess the academy thinks
its more challenging to be a female actor than to be a female director or
writer, so they deserve their own gender-specific category in acting. Why
can't Reese Witherspoon, Felicity Huffman and Charlize Theron have their
acting be judged against the acting performances of the guys?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 24 of 153:
|
Feb 1 17:15 UTC 2006 |
I didn't know that people actually cared this much about academy awards.
|
twenex
|
|
response 25 of 153:
|
Feb 1 17:25 UTC 2006 |
Re: #22. Well in that case, The Italian Job wasn't a remake either, as it
would baffle anyone who's seen the original where they got the idea for the
second from!
|
richard
|
|
response 26 of 153:
|
Feb 1 18:36 UTC 2006 |
LOTR was based on the books, not on the earlier cartoon movie. Peter Jackson
may have never even seen that movie.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 27 of 153:
|
Feb 2 03:18 UTC 2006 |
Re #26: And rather _loosely_ based on the books, at that. (My
impression was that Jackson said something like "This could be a good
story if ...") The first one wasn't too bad, but it went downhill from
there.
|
richard
|
|
response 28 of 153:
|
Feb 2 15:29 UTC 2006 |
re #27 yeah that must be why die-hard LOTR fans loved the movies and they won
a boatload of awards...
|
jadecat
|
|
response 29 of 153:
|
Feb 2 15:34 UTC 2006 |
Gotta be.
|
aruba
|
|
response 30 of 153:
|
Feb 3 21:13 UTC 2006 |
Re #27: Jonathan - I was a big fan of the books, and I thought Peter Jackson
did a good job with the movies. He had to leave some things out, but there
just wasn't enough time to do everything. Why do you say "loosely"?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 31 of 153:
|
Feb 3 21:28 UTC 2006 |
The *additions* -- the elves at Helm's Deep, replacing Glorfindel with Arwen
(though that would have been under other circumstances a reasonable change;
_Fellowship_ wasn't too different). The unintended funniest line was either
Frodo or Sam in *Minas Tirith* with the Nazgul coming down at them: "We
shouldn't even be here!"
And then it's that they didn't just cut, they *truncated* the (IMO) most
important part of the story: the Scouring of the Shire. IMO, the whole War of
the Ring is just complications in the quest to keep the Shire pure and
innocent. The books are *about* something; the movies cut out most of the
meaning and replaced it with expanded versions of the "action" -- mainly battle
scenes, IIRC.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 32 of 153:
|
Feb 3 23:52 UTC 2006 |
re #31: I think you've got your fictional geography mixed up, or else you
saw a different movie than I did, as there was no Nazgul attack near Minas
Tirith (not on Frodo and Sam, anyways.) Perhaps you were thinking of a
scene near Minas Morgul?
I was a little miffed that they left out the Scouring of the Shire, but it's
understandable. I think they should have included it in a premium DVD issue.
|