Moe_Syzlak Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 My Oscar moment of clarity came when Dances With Hamsters beat out GoodFellas.I hear ya, but I don't think that is nearly as bad as Shakespeare in Love or Forrest Gump beating Pulp Fiction. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 my losing moment was when Gladiator beat Crouching Tiger out, although it did redeem itself with Crash, but only a little bit. Wait, I thought Crash did win -- ohh Nevermind. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 my losing moment was when Gladiator beat anything I hear you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Gym Teacher Man Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I'd take Traffic over either Crouching Tiger or Gladiator. Robin Williams deserved his oscar. I don't like him, but he was amazing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jakobnicholas Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 A film's subject matter has an average of about 20% pull when it comes to whether I'm interested in seeing it.For example - I didn't give a flying fuck about Queen Elizabeth, but I saw The Queen and found it to be poignant, urgent, and funny. jakobnicholas - you need to broaden your horizons. You've never heard of The Reader so it sucks. Brilliant. Why the hell do I even read your posts in this thread! You obviously DON'T read my posts, because I never said The Reader sucks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You obviously DON'T read my posts, because I never said The Reader sucks.That is correct. It was "so what" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Did you all forget the part where the beatles didn't get oscars? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You obviously DON'T read my posts, because I never said The Reader sucks.Semantics. So you didn't say 'it sucks.'The reason I haven't seen most of them is because either the subject matter or opinions I've read or heard don't make me WANT to see them. The Reader...I know NOTHING about it. I'd never heard of it before the nomination.Not exactly an open-minded "I wonder what this movie is about!" type of reaction to the nomination. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Did you all forget the part where the beatles didn't get oscars?Ringo was absolutely snubbed for his method acting in Caveman. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Ringo was absolutely snubbed for his method acting in Caveman. and he should have gotten an Emmy for Shining Time Station! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Just for grins I looked back at all the nominees since 1970. There have been 195 nominee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jakobnicholas Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 The nominations mean so little to me these days because they don’t always appeal to my taste. I think that's the crux of my problem. I'm not meaning to belittle the 5 films, but rather pointing out that for me, I could care less about seeing them....Slumdog Millionaire excluded (I'm intrigued to check it out). The Oscar nominees have hardly ever appealed to my tastes, which is why when Goodfellas or Lord of the Rings or American Beauty or Old Country For Old Men get nominated, it gets me a little more jazzed about the Academy Awards. I was hoping one of "my" movies got a nod. I didn't expect it, but it's happened before. In 1998, these movies got nominated: • Shakespeare In Love• Elizabeth• Life is Beautiful• Saving Private Ryan• Thin Red Line That's a pretty good list of films. I saw 3 of them. But my favorite film that year was Buffalo '66. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Gym Teacher Man Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 In 1998, these movies got nominated: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Surely Saving Private Ryan is better than Shakespeare in Love, but that's one of my favorite Oscar moments ever. It's rare when the show actually has a moment that doesn't feel pre-ordained, and that one was a shocker. Great fun, that was. I suppose we could get worked up about who wuz robbed, but seriously: Does Saving Private Ryan, or any other good movie, really need the validation of Oscar to endure or be treasured? A win is merely a footnote, a nice bit of trivia attached to the history of the movie's journey. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 God I hated Shakespeare in Love and really felt it was the worst of the nominated movies. I didn't think it even deserved a nom. It pissed me off that it won and I don't generally care one way or the other about the Oscars (other than it sometimes highlighting some movies for me to check out). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I was glad Shakespeare in Love won. And I still think it's the better movie of the two. For me, take away the impressive opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan and there isn't a whole lot there. It's a fairly pedestrian story. But it does have some very impressive scenes and I like the movie. I just don't feel it was robbed of anything. Of course, Beltmann hit the nail on the head. There's no reason to think of the Oscars as validation of anything. Either you think a movie's good or you don't. Plus, at least in that instance, it's not like Saving Private Ryan was the little movie you loved that you wanted to see garner more success. And can someone please tell Jakobnicholas that the title of the movie is No Country for Old Men. I think he has used Old Country for Old Men enough times to discount the typo theory. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Calexico Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Colour me very disappointed that Revolutionary Road didn't get nominated in the Adapted Screenplay category. Bastards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GtrPlyr Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I was glad Shakespeare in Love won.Agreed. I haven't seen either film in many years, but I do recall thinking Shakespeare was the better of the 2 films at the time and was happy it won. Saving Private Ryan was impressive technically, but it didn't stir me as much as it should have considering the gravitas of the subject. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was good, but as far as war films go, it wouldn't even make my top 10. Part of the problem for me was the casting: Tom Hanks is not as good an actor as he's made out to be--maybe it's just me. The film also had too much of a Hollywood blockbuster gild around the edges. I prefer understated realism to overly dramatic manipulation. Maybe I need to watch it again and see if it hits me differently this time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I prefer understated realism to overly dramatic manipulation.Have you seen Frozen River yet? I watched it tonight, and I think it's about as perfect as a movie can be. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GtrPlyr Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Have you seen Frozen River yet? I watched it tonight, and I think it's about as perfect as a movie can be.I haven't seen that, but it is on my shortlist of films to see in the next little while. I'm slowly catching up on the current crop of films: Watched "Wendy and Lucy" and "Slumdog Millionaire" yesterday. Today I'm hoping to watch "Frost/Nixon." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dondoboy Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 Tom Hanks is not as good an actor as he's made out to beOh please. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
isadorah Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 i saw gran torino this weekend and indeed Clint was robbed of a best actor nom. he did a much better job than brad pitt, but that's just my opinion. overall the movie was good, started out predictable, but once it got going, hooked. and in true clint eastwood form, half-way through there's that notion, oh right, i am watching a clint eastwood movie this isn't going to end happy. but i'm not saying if there's a twist in the end or not, . it is a movie worthy of the $8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Gym Teacher Man Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 i'll never understand the lack of love for tom hanks. to me, he is the quintessential actor of his time. and i actually think his best work was saving private ryan. i also don't understand the love for the thin red line. i tried to watch it three times and failed each time. just way to boring for my taste. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 i'll never understand the lack of love for tom hanks. to me, he is the quintessential actor of his time. and i actually think his best work was saving private ryan. i also don't understand the love for the thin red line. i tried to watch it three times and failed each time. just way to boring for my taste. Actually, there's a much better argument to be made for his best work being Big. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.