Oscars in ______ minutes and counting!

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 3:20 am

I havn't slept last night- so I am very grouchy, critical, and confused- so Please don't attack my word too strongly. If there is anything you want clarification about- post it, and I will answer it when my mind has cleared up.

I just got back from doing some errands (The oscars finish here at about 7:30 AM) and here is my evaluation:

1. Best Picture: As I said in the other thread - ABM was a sure winner- I now (after seeing it again) think that it was a pretty average film- but because of the love, drama, and the fact that its a true story, the acadamy saps picked it. IMO it should have gone to Moulin Rouge or Gosford Park.

2. Best director:
A. IMO They gave to Howard as a life time achievement- they could have given it to Altman
B. Ridley should have gotten it- he deserved it last year. (IMO Traffic and Erin Brokovich were not very good)
C. IMO- Luhrman deserved it most of all.

3. Best actor: Denzel was the best actor (in the specific character) out of the five- he certainly deserved it.
Smith: over-acting.
Crowe: The movie was too easy- he did't have to act too much to get into character.
Wilkinson: I havn't seen the movie yet.
Penn: It would have been pointless to give it to him- he already said he wouldn't accept.

4. Best actress: definatly PC- Nicole Kidmen was soooooo much better.

5. Supporting actor: I think Broadbent should have won for Moulin Rouge- he was great as Ziedler. Given the choices- Ian should have won.

6. Suppoting actress: I think Magie Smith was better, but she was good too.

7. I am here expressing my extrieme dissapointment that Howard Shore won for the score- I think it was a good score, but not the best.
James Horner didn't have enough versatilety(sp) to produce a great score for ABM- he reuses the same kind of tunes- just look at Titanic and Braveheart.
Randy Newman- he is just someone who will always be nominated.
Like John Williams- who out of the past 34 years hasn't bben nominated in 8 of the oscars. He has been nominated 2 in the same year- 10 times. 3 times in the same year- 2 times. Altogether 41 times 26 years- out of them 5 wins.
Anyway in past years I've routed for Williams, even though he wasn't the most deserving. Like last year- IMO Hans Zimmer should have taken it for Gladiator- despite the fact that Williams was nominated for the Patriot. Instead Tan Dun won for Crouching Tiger- an unimpressive score for a bad movie.
Bottom line- HP had the best score this year- Williams should have won.

@Tami: I thought Shrek was very good, but could have been better. Monsters was for a younger audience, and either way could have been much better. The best part(like in all pixar movies) was the bloopers. They are hillarious.

Whoopi Goldberg was not funny enough in the short period she was in it. The best oscars ever, were the 69th and 70th (English patient,Titanic), Billy Crystal was hillarious in them.

The Cirque De Soleil was nice, although nothing like seeing it live in a theater- I saw them in "La Nuba" two years ago, it was the best live preformance I've ever seen. It was amazing. Of course, that was only because a very rich freind of mine orders tickeats 6 months in advance for 600 dollars a piece- giving us the front row.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 12:07 pm

Originally posted by Dottie

Argh! Die Eddie Murphy, Die!

ROLF

I couldn't express my opinion more clearly

Mysteria · Post by **Mysteria** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 1:17 pm

I want an Oscar for Amélie Poulain!

Honestly, I think it should have gotten at least one!

IMO, it's simply THE best film I've seen this year. I even thought that it was better than LOTR and ABM.

*stalks away grumbling*

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:33 pm

The only award I'm dissapointed with it the Best director one to Ron Howard. I feel that Peter Jackson should've gotten it, as he managed to pull off making the LotR's a great movie, and came damn close to living up to the legacy the books left. The sheer magnitude of the project alone showed his directing ability, and the fact he made it good is just the testament.

anyway, the rest the awards I feel we're put in the right place.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 3:19 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
The only award I'm dissapointed with it the Best director one to Ron Howard. I feel that Peter Jackson should've gotten it, as he managed to pull off making the LotR's a great movie, and came damn close to living up to the legacy the books left. The sheer magnitude of the project alone showed his directing ability, and the fact he made it good is just the testament.

anyway, the rest the awards I feel we're put in the right place.

I am so tempted to start complaining (again) as to why i did not rate Peter Jackson's directing, but then i would just turn this into a LotR debate, so i will pass.

As far as the Oscars go, they all seem to have gone to the right people apart from Cinematography which should have gone to The Man Who Wasn't There

I am glad to see Denzel getting an Oscar, he always pulls off a good performance in every film and his acceptance speech was also very dignified. On that point it is nice to see so many winners of ethinc origin

Also it was interesting to see Jim Broadbent get Best Supporting Actor, and as was said on Radio 1 today he is probably the first man to have said "Stone the Crows" for about fifteen years

What was the general consensous with the fashion? Since this has always been such an important conversational point to the oscars.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:22 pm

@Sleep: Just because I'm interested, do you think you may be able to PM me or e-mail your reasons?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:55 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
@Sleep: Just because I'm interested, do you think you may be able to PM me or e-mail your reasons?

I'll probably do it tomorrow in work

You could check out the LotR thread, the last few pages i expunged some of my bile onto the page, i didn't really go into detail of my problems, but that might give you an idea

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 5:15 pm

I'll check that out too. Thanks.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 5:52 pm

Posted by Morlock:
1. Best Picture: As I said in the other thread - ABM was a sure winner- I now (after seeing it again) think that it was a pretty average film- but because of the love, drama, and the fact that its a true story, the acadamy saps picked it. IMO it should have gone to Moulin Rouge or Gosford Park.

"Academy saps", LOL

Totally agree though, it's the kind of movie that gets picked time and again, and I wish they would pick something less obvious. I really don't think ABM had anything that special.

2. Best director:
A. IMO They gave to Howard as a life time achievement- they could have given it to Altman
B. Ridley should have gotten it- he deserved it last year. (IMO Traffic and Erin Brokovich were not very good)
C. IMO- Luhrman deserved it most of all.

Again, in (semi-)agreement here... Howard's very popular, he has a large back-catalogue, and I think the voters take things like that into account... Compare it with Peter Jackson, who has comparatively little to his name, and Baz Luhrmann - only his third movie? Ridley Scott was the most deserving I think... but I reckon his time will come soon.

3. Best actor: Denzel was the best actor (in the specific character) out of the five- he certainly deserved it.

I haven't seen it, but he sounds like he was a deserving winner... I'm just quite pleased that Russell Crowe and his disabled-genius-by-numbers didn't win.

4. Best actress: definatly PC- Nicole Kidmen was soooooo much better.

Again, haven't seen Monsters Ball, it hasn't been released here yet, but I'm glad Nicole Kidman didn't win because I wasn't especially impressed by her performance, and the others all seemed like much stronger contenders.

5. Supporting actor: I think Broadbent should have won for Moulin Rouge- he was great as Ziedler. Given the choices- Ian should have won.

I think the fact that Broadbent had two strong performances to his name, although he was only nominated for Iris, probably helped him to win, and IMO it was the right choice.

7. I am here expressing my extrieme dissapointment that Howard Shore won for the score- I think it was a good score, but not the best.

IMO Howard Shore's score was the best, and I'm glad it won... but I'm annoyed with myself for leaving my CD of it at uni

Whoopi Goldberg was ok, Billy Crystal probably would have been more amusing... But all in all, it was a rather staid show - nothing too dramatic aside from Halle Berry's hysterics, nobody wearing anything too ridiculous...

Posted by Aegis:
I feel that Peter Jackson should've gotten it, as he managed to pull off making the LotR's a great movie, and came damn close to living up to the legacy the books left. The sheer magnitude of the project alone showed his directing ability, and the fact he made it good is just the testament.

IMO this would justify more that LotR should have won Best Adapted Screenplay, because I feel that it's such a huge achievement to adapt something like LotR successfully. Still, as I said, LotR has two years more to go... hopefully next year or the year after it will receive something in recognition of the colossal achievement that it represents

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:38 pm

Originally posted by Xandax
Hehe - I can't help feeling a bit happy that LoTR didn't get the major Oscar-awards (Best Actor, Best Picture etc.) - because for once these guys shows that thay are in agrement with my own oppinion, which I stated back when LoTR hype was on its highest.
(That LoTR was more about effects imo)

LotR was entertaining yes. But going up against ABM, Gosford Park etc. (I haven't seen these movies yet) It really stood no chance. They got the oscars that they deserved, although I was suprised that Ian McKellen didn't win. Once again I haven't seen Iris so I can't really comment there.

EDIT- They showed Cirque de Soleie (obvious sp?). I saw these guys a while ago in Perth. And they were awesome.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:45 pm

Originally posted by Tamerlane
LotR was entertaining yes. But going up against ABM, Gosford Park etc. (I haven't seen these movies yet) It really stood no chance. They got the oscars that they deserved

IMO it stood no chance (and I think it did stand a chance, for a while it looked like it might scrape it, and I believe it was quite close) not because other movies deserved to win, but because of Academy prejudices. I have seen all of the movies nominated for Best Picture, and IMO LotR was the best one there.

An interesting comment was made by Alan Cummings on the BBC coverage yesterday - the majority of the Academy voters are actors, and ABM is an actor's movie.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:51 pm

Originally posted by Georgi
An interesting comment was made by Alan Cummings on the BBC coverage yesterday - the majority of the Academy voters are actors, and ABM is an actor's movie.

Thats an interesting comment. I remember reading somewhere something similar to that.

Here is something that amused me. During the Zoolander skit. Ben Stiller and the other guy dressed up in costumes. Ben was Gimili, however afterwards the other commented on him being an elf. That drew a smile to my face.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 7:16 pm

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Here is something that amused me. During the Zoolander skit. Ben Stiller and the other guy dressed up in costumes. Ben was Gimili, however afterwards the other commented on him being an elf. That drew a smile to my face.

Yes, I noticed that... and then felt like a geek