Oscar Nominations

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 7:08 pm

Mind the spoiler!

Originally posted by Morlock
I wasn't especialy impressed. Because at the core of the movie- there is no intelligence, it just about the shooting and the action, which was of course amazing, but not enough to make an entire movie out of.

I think the point is to show what it would be like to be one of those soldiers... and I think the movie does it well. Though admittedly the scenes of the major weren't that great.

I assume everyone noticed Legolas AKA Orlando Bloom as Private Todd Blackburn?

Definitely

It's always the same, the cute guy is the first to get put out of action...

b]I think a big flaw in the movie was all the foreign actors. They are great actors, but not as Americans. I think, that to make sure their accents didn't slip- they gave them all some sort of southern accent- with which you could slip a little and it still would be unnoticable.[/b]

I admit I was wondering why they couldn't get Americans to play Americans... Ewan McGregor was particularly bad. Jason Isaacs was about the best of them I think.

I think its getting realy annoying the way Jerry Bruckheimer often uses the same cast in his movies.

It's not unusual for directors to do that though (yes, I know he's a producer). Though it doesn't quite make sense to me when the actor in question is the uncharismatic Josh Hartnett...

Also Bruckheimer often and Ridley Scott always uses composer Hans Zimmer- He did Pearl Harbor, The Rock and Crimson tide.

And? This also isn't remarkable. As you yourself have noted, Spielberg always uses John Williams for his soundtracks. A lot of people use Hans Zimmer.

A note on Jason Isaacs- He is a great actor, his best role IMO was in the Patriot- he was Tavington, the bad guy.

I really think The Patriot was given too hard a time by a lot of the British critics. Ok, so it wasn't that amazing a movie, but it wasn't bad, I was certainly entertained by it... And if it wasn't totally historically accurate, well it never claimed to be, it was fiction based on history, after all. Tavington is a delightfully evil bad guy... and why complain about the British being bad guys when we do it so well?

Isaacs' best role? You mean you never saw him playing a drag queen in that godwaful Keanu Reeves vehicle Sweet November?

Oh, ummm... no, probably not

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 7:14 am

Re: Mind the spoiler!

Originally posted by Georgi
Definitely It's always the same, the cute guy is the first to get put out of action...

Yup, thats why I was removed before the movie even started.

It's not unusual for directors to do that though (yes, I know he's a producer). Though it doesn't quite make sense to me when the actor in question is the uncharismatic Josh Hartnett...

First, he is a producer, so there is a differnece.
Still, that is a lot of actors. (I didn't even mention Cage or Afflack)

And? This also isn't remarkable. As you yourself have noted, Spielberg always uses John Williams for his soundtracks. A lot of people use Hans Zimmer.

This I didn't mean as anything remarkable or negative. I just noted another example of using the same people.

I really think The Patriot was given too hard a time by a lot of the British critics. Ok, so it wasn't that amazing a movie, but it wasn't bad, I was certainly entertained by it... And if it wasn't totally historically accurate, well it never claimed to be, it was fiction based on history, after all. Tavington is a delightfully evil bad guy... and why complain about the British being bad guys when we do it so well?

I think that they took it much too seriously. (History is written by the victors)

IMO Isaac's was definetly the best thing about the movie. He's just so perfect in that role.

Isaacs' best role? You mean you never saw him playing a drag queen in that godwaful Keanu Reeves vehicle Sweet November? Oh, ummm... no, probably not

Are you sirious?

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 8:08 pm

Posted by Morlock:
Yup, thats why I was removed before the movie even started.

First, he is a producer, so there is a differnece.
Still, that is a lot of actors. (I didn't even mention Cage or Afflack)

True. Although with a lot of the movies he produces, I find they're more distinctive as Jerry Bruckheimer productions than the director, who might not be anyone big... Obviously that's not true of a director like Ridley Scott.

This I didn't mean as anything remarkable or negative. I just noted another example of using the same people.

Oh, right

I dunno, maybe it's less effort than having to find new people...

I think that they took it much too seriously. (History is written by the victors)

I totally agree... But there was a furore about the fact that there's no evidence at all of the barbarities in the movie (like the torching of a church full of people)... IMO, it doesn't matter because it's not presented as fact. It's often compared to U-571, which did actually alter history, and there was a big uproar about that as well, which is far more justified than the criticism of The Patriot.

IMO Isaac's was definetly the best thing about the movie. He's just so perfect in that role.

Yep, I thought he was delightfully dastardly

Are you sirious?

Which part?

Yes, he did play that part... and he was probably about the best thing in the film - though out-acting Keanu Reeves and Charlize Theron is hardly a challenge - but I wasn't serious about it being his best role

I'd recommend you see it, aside from the fact that nobody should ever have to see this movie, whether through free choice or inflicted upon them as some kind of cruel and unusual mindnumbing torture...

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Sun Mar 17, 2002 12:21 am

I just now read in the paper that "A beutiful mind" may be in trouble.
It seems that an internet columnist said that Nash (The main character) is (or was) an anti-Semite. Since the voting for the oscars are disproportionately jewish, or pro jewish, that significantley reduces the chance of the movie getting the final votes that come in the next few days.
The Scriptwriter, Akive Goldsman- a proud jew, said that any anti semitism should be attributed to Nash's schizophrenia, which makes cense, since his partner was a jew, and paranoid people think everybody, but especialy the people close to them are against them.
The movie is a joint Dreamworks/ Universal pictures production.
The chairman of universal has discredited the story as the competition trying to get more votes.
Dreamworks has not replied as of yet, which is puzzeling to me since its three founders are jews (Spielberg, Katzenberg and Geffen).

Your thoughts?

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 9:04 pm

Originally posted by Morlock
I just now read in the paper that "A beutiful mind" may be in trouble.
<snip>

I haven't heard about this, or been able to find any reference to it... do you have any links to the story, @Morlock?

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 9:14 pm

I was under the impression that the problem occured when an article was published in the London Times.

Apparently he claimed to not only of been fearful of Jews and Israel but also that he was the Emperor of Antartica(sp?), he was Job and a living messiah among other things. Not suprisingly the article only focused on the Jews aspect.

I'll try to find a link somewhere later

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 9:39 pm

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Apparently he claimed to not only of been fearful of Jews and Israel but also that he was the Emperor of Antartica(sp?), he was Job and a living messiah among other things. Not suprisingly the article only focused on the Jews aspect.

Hmmm. Well, the movie is very much a fictionalised account of Nash's life; a lot of the less wholesome aspects were omitted, so I guess it's not that surprising if this was too.

Irregardless of the man who is the subject of the movie, I think the Oscars should be awarded on the basis of the movie itself. Still, this kind of thing can influence decisions, I suppose. We shall see...

Thanks Tammy - I found some info on it

Edit: Nash denies anti-Semitism, though he says he may have said things during his schizophrenia that could be taken that way. Apparently he was being interviewed on US TV yesterday...

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 4:34 am

Here you go.

I read this in my local paper. Nash said that he feared Israel and Jews because of his hallucinations was that he was an Arab refugee named Job, and who was the left foot of god and the Emperer of Antartica.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:38 pm

Thanks Morlock

I have to wonder what the point is of all the awards-season promotion of movies; surely the members of the Academy are capable enough of deciding which ones they preferred without some advert telling them so.

And the same goes for this kind of thing - it shouldn't make any difference to which performance is the best one. Would it reflect badly on the Academy if an Oscar is awarded to A Beautiful Mind because of what John Nash may or may not have said? I don't think so. But would it reflect badly on the Academy if an Oscar is not awarded to the movie on the basis of this mudslinging rather than the strengths/weaknesses of the movie? I think it would.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 6:56 am

They have been tallied

The oscars have been tallied, lets hope it doesn't go like a certain other voting situation *ahem* Florida *ahem*

I was listening to the radio and they were debating the principles of the Studio system and how the major studio's are diluting the actual talents of a particular actor by placing them on a continual advertising campaign. If one was too watch Letterman or Leno (or any of the other chat show hosts) they would see that there has been a large increase of these celebrities all trying to plug their films. So the question is are we voting for the marketing machine or the stars actual talent?

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 9:03 am

To get back to a topic from a few weeks ago, I've just senn Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet, and I admit I rejected it too quickly.
I thought it was weirder than MR, (Moulin Rouge) especialy Mercutio and Capulet cross-dressing, but still it was very well done. I especialy liked the way it seemlessly fit into modern times, like the guns named sword and dagger, and the Fed-Ex type delivery service.
On the subject of Shakespeare movies, has anyone seen Titus? It wasn't a very good movie, except for two things: the actor- I love Anthony Hopkins and, like R+J the incorporation of modern inventions, but here it is set 2000 years ago. (They have two guys driving in a motocade with mocrophones to the modern Senate building)

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 9:28 am

Originally posted by Morlock
To get back to a topic from a few weeks ago, I've just senn Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet, and I admit I rejected it too quickly.
I thought it was weirder than MR, (Moulin Rouge) especialy Mercutio and Capulet cross-dressing, but still it was very well done. I especialy liked the way it seemlessly fit into modern times, like the guns named sword and dagger, and the Fed-Ex type delivery service.

So you didn't find some of the dialogue a little hackneyed?

The best thing about it IMO is the way that Luhrman still manages to shock you at the end with the Bullet.....he times it slightly off so it still surprises the audience

Did you like the soundtrack @Morlock?

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 12:04 pm

I thought the soundrack was OK, except for Mozart's 25 symphony at the start, which is great.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 2:32 pm

Could someone post verification as to the name of the tune at the very begining, while the Dramatis Persona is playing?
the thing that made most sence in the credits was Wagner's Tristen and isolde- is this correct?

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 10:15 pm

Originally posted by Morlock
Could someone post verification as to the name of the tune at the very begining, while the Dramatis Persona is playing?
the thing that made most sence in the credits was Wagner's Tristen and isolde- is this correct?

Not sure on this one, but I believe Tristan and Isolde is the aria at the end, after Juliet dies. I don't know what the opening is.

I think Moulin Rouge is more weird... I haven't seen Titus, but I don't think updates always work; I was impressed that Luhrmann pulled it off.

@Sleepy the dialogue? See, I knew it was Shakespeare and not Baz Luhrmann that you really have a problem with...

And we aren't voting for anything... In the end, who knows how the Academy works?

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:23 am

@Georgi: I found it was called 'O Verona'. Its a realy great tune (reminds me of Mozart's Requiem).

I think both R+J and MR are weird, but once you adapt to their basic weirdness, its fine, like the first time I saw MR I thought it was very weird at the start- with the unconsious Argintinian and Tulouse Latreck, then with Ziddler and the Can- Can at the Moulin Rouge, but after that I got used to it.
Thats exactly what happens in R+J- once you get used to the fact that its based in modern times, its fine.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:34 am

Originally posted by Morlock
@Georgi: I found it was called 'O Verona'. Its a realy great tune (reminds me of Mozart's Requiem).

I think both R+J and MR are weird, but once you adapt to their basic weirdness, its fine, like the first time I saw MR I thought it was very weird at the start- with the unconsious Argintinian and Tulouse Latreck, then with Ziddler and the Can- Can at the Moulin Rouge, but after that I got used to it.
Thats exactly what happens in R+J- once you get used to the fact that its based in modern times, its fine.

D'oh! *smacks herself in the head* Now that you say it, I realise I did know that...

It must have been filed away in the back of my brain somewhere

I think I might see Moulin Rouge again... It probably does improve with an extra viewing, I agree that it gets less weird as you watch.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 5:37 am

Originally posted by Georgi
@Sleepy the dialogue? See, I knew it was Shakespeare and not Baz Luhrmann that you really have a problem with...

And we aren't voting for anything... In the end, who knows how the Academy works?

I have been exposed

What i actually meant is in the modern scenery and setting didn't the language seem a little out of place?

It was a generalisation

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 9:29 am

I've just seen "Training Day" and I was really impressed.
Not with the script or the scenery, but the acting. Denzel Washington was amazing there- he plays a character totaly different than any other of his roles.
I don't know why Ethan Hawk was only nominated for the best suppoting actor oscar- he was the main actor. Its like with Amadeus- one guy is the main character who everything is from his point view, and the second guy is the main subject- and in Amadeus both F. Murray Abram (Salieri) and Tom Hulce (Mozart) were nominated for best actor. The former won.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Fri Mar 22, 2002 2:31 am

Originally posted by Morlock
I've just seen "Training Day" and I was really impressed.
Not with the script or the scenery, but the acting. Denzel Washington was amazing there- he plays a character totaly different than any other of his roles.

So i guess his nomination is justified then. Thats one problem with living in Australia. You don't get to see many movies until either around Oscar time or afterwards.

IIRC Gosford Park was just released here, so I'll have to try find a chance to watch it before the Oscars. They tend to have a habit of showing too much of each film for my own liking.