Title: Academy Awards Post by: Furiously on January 31, 2006, 11:18:29 PM I've given up watching because I don't put much faith in the Academy selecting the person most deserving, so - who should win each catagory?
Best Picture Brokeback Mountain Capote Crash Goodnight and Good Luck Munich Achievement in Directing Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain Bennett Miller, Capote Paul Haggis, Crash George Clooney, Good Night and Good Luck Steven Spielberg, Munich Best Actor in a Leading Role Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote Terrence Howard, Hustle and Flow Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line David Strathairn, Good Night and Good Luck Best Actress in a Leading Role Judi Dench, Mrs. Henderson Presents Felicity Huffman, Transamerica Keira Knightly, Pride and Prejudice Charlize Theron, North Country Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line Best Supporting Actor George Clooney, Syriana Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain Matt Dillon, Crash William Hurt, Syriana Best Supporting Actress Amy Adam, Junebug Catherine Keener, Capote Francis McDormand, North Country Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: schild on January 31, 2006, 11:29:01 PM I'm gonna say it. I'm gonna be that guy.
This is the year for alternative lifestyles. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Righ on February 01, 2006, 12:11:17 AM That Paul Haggis is a multi-talented guy, even if he's got one leg shorter than the other.
Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Murgos on February 01, 2006, 05:37:55 AM The only movie I've seen on that list is Syriana - and I don't think either John Hurt or George Clooney did well enough to win for best supporting actor. I actually don't think either one of them gave more than a slightly above average performance. Must be a bad year for supporting actor recognition.
Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Roac on February 01, 2006, 06:42:57 AM Hmm. I haven't seen any of them, which could explain why I was entirely uninterested when they drummed up the announcements.
Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Sky on February 01, 2006, 06:51:46 AM Haven't seen any of them. What you need is a new list of nominees that doesn't include the incestuous "stars" that are all tired old has-beens and also-rans. Millions of people in this country and we have to watch the same old retards in every movie.
Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Signe on February 01, 2006, 06:59:26 AM I haven't seen any of them either. I've seen about 5 films in the theater in the last decade or so. I don't like theaters. They smell funny and give me a backache. I suppose if they FORCED me to vote for anything, it would have to be Cool Runnings.
Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: HaemishM on February 01, 2006, 07:27:43 AM Let me be the one to say it within even more invective and more angst.
Fuck Hollywood in its stupid fucking ass. Reacharound Ridge would not have gotten shit for recognition if the two main characters had not been gay and "hunky" Hollywood types. I've seen nothing in the press for that movie that leads me to believe I give a shit about seeing it, or that anyone should give a shit about seeing it unless its to see a gay cowboy movie. If it wasn't about gay people, it'd be here and gone again. My list of who should (but won't) win? Since we all know Brokeback will win an ass-pirate-load. Best Picture Capote Achievement in Directing George Clooney, Good Night and Good Luck Best Actor in a Leading Role Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote Best Actress in a Leading Role No one should win, this is a week crowd Best Supporting Actor Weak ass list of roles Best Supporting Actress Isn't there another list? I have interest in about 4 of the films listed. I've seen none of them. I believe America is behind me, except for the weepy women who like gay pr0n but don't want to admit it, so they go see Brokeback and can justify it by saying it's Oscar-worthy art. Not since the FUCKING ENGLISH PATIENT has the weepy woman crowd been so catered to. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Rasix on February 01, 2006, 08:33:47 AM This is the year for alternative lifestyles. That's not a unreasonable prediction. The academy likes to run on themes lately. Of course, it could always be the "career validation" year, which is possible given the nominees. For what it's worth, my wife said Brokeback Mountain was actually a good movie. But of course, she's a big Anne Hathaway fan. Ella Enchanted has been on our TIVO for a while now. I haven't seen any of the movies nominated nor any of the actors this year, much like last year. I didn't watch it last year and I don't think I'll watch this year. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Ironwood on February 01, 2006, 08:46:33 AM I too am a big Anne Hathaway fan.
For, I'm hoping, wildly different reasons from your wife. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: jpark on February 01, 2006, 08:48:21 AM The line up does not excite me much - seen about half of them.
Hoping Clooney gets some recognition - Syriana took a lot of guts to make. He is also there for Good Night a nd Good luck - good for him - playing the odds - he may get something. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: cevik on February 01, 2006, 08:50:46 AM I too am a big Anne Hathaway fan. For, I'm hoping, wildly different reasons from your wife. I'm hoping it's the same reason.. and I'm hoping Rasix will distribute videos.. but I'm an ass like that.. You people care enough about the Acadamy Awards to discuss this shit? I mean seriously, it's the fucking Acadamy Awards people.. EDIT: I suggest buying an xbox 360 and playing it instead. You can purchase one at my favorite retailer, ebgames.com!1! What do you guys think about ebgames? Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Ironwood on February 01, 2006, 09:06:38 AM I won't buy an XBOX unless the Gamer Girls say it's ok.
(But seriously, we've done the mole thing to death.) Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: cevik on February 01, 2006, 09:07:34 AM (But seriously, we've done the mole thing to death.) Ohh no, I've got years left on it.. years.. Besides, it's much better than discussing the fucking academy awards.. MUCH BETTER.. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: kaid on February 01, 2006, 09:12:01 AM Wow a whole lot of movies nominated that I dont think I will ever see nor do I know anybody who wants to see them. And given the box office totals they should change the award from best picture to best picture nobody wanted to see.
kaid Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Lt.Dan on February 01, 2006, 09:22:59 AM The Golden Globes is a much more interesting event. The Academy Awards is an advertising bonanza interrupted with some speeches and more pre-game than any major sporting event.
Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Kenrick on February 01, 2006, 11:52:20 AM Go Wallace and Gromit.
Otherwise, wow... *yawn*. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Llava on February 01, 2006, 12:10:16 PM I watched a bunch of movies this year.
I have not seen a single one of those. Of all of them, the only ones I wanted to see were: Good Night And Good Luck Syriana I had vague interest in seeing Capote. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: schild on February 01, 2006, 12:13:43 PM Philip Seymour Hoffman should win for his role in Capote because he's Philip Seymour Hoffman and he rules.
Honestly though, there are no surprises this year. This is a very very Oscar pandering year. It's not hard to see a trailer these days and know it will at least get nominated for Oscars even though you can generally figure out who will win immediatley. Hell, you can even do it for movies that come out in February/March, though no studio would ever release their Oscar movies in Feb/Mar. Basically, they've become far too predictable. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Fargull on February 01, 2006, 02:47:20 PM Best Picture Capote Achievement in Directing Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain Best Actor in a Leading Role Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote Best Actress in a Leading Role Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line Best Supporting Actor George Clooney, Syriana Best Supporting Actress Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener Only one I give a damn about is Rachel in the Constant Gardener. She was great in the movie (Damn good movie), but honestly, she is gorgious in my book so that obviously taints any opinion. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: schild on February 01, 2006, 02:54:01 PM I thought Constant Gardener was unbearable. Weisz is hottie hottie mchotterson but I'd rather see Shape of Things or even the Mummy again.
But then, the "best supporting actress" category has always been a goddamn joke. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Trippy on February 01, 2006, 04:46:06 PM For the love of TFSM please fix the title! Oh and I'm happy to say I haven't seen any of the movies listed above, though I do kind of want to see Syriana.
Edit: fixed misspelling Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: schild on February 01, 2006, 04:53:59 PM though I do kind of want to see Syrianna. Nah, you don't. It's completely mediocre. Just watch The Insider again if you want a slow paced movie filmed to look like it's clipping along like a freight train. Syriana is just more Soderberg style Oscar pandering bullshit. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Paelos on February 01, 2006, 04:54:53 PM I've seen none of these. I haven't even THOUGHT about seeing any of these. That's how shitty this list is.
Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: jpark on February 01, 2006, 10:11:09 PM though I do kind of want to see Syrianna. Nah, you don't. It's completely mediocre. Just watch The Insider again if you want a slow paced movie filmed to look like it's clipping along like a freight train. Syriana is just more Soderberg style Oscar pandering bullshit. I don't know the reference here but I thought the film was excellent. It required viewers to actually know something about the world - whether that be politics or finance - and made the very bold move of portraying a suicide bomber in a ... sympathatic light (understanding? anyway, it was not demonizing). I found myself trying to follow the plot in some places - I enjoyed the challenge. The ending too caught me off guard. That alone is unusual - don't profess to be bright - just that most of us are not easily surprised. The exchange between Matt Damon and his Saudi client with reference to his son's incident was masterful dialogue to me in its business/emotional context. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Abagadro on February 01, 2006, 10:26:41 PM I thought Syriana was amazingly good. Very interestingly done. Munich was good too.
Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: Murgos on February 02, 2006, 05:24:23 AM I found myself trying to follow the plot in some places - I enjoyed the challenge. The ending too caught me off guard. I guess this is why I thought it was mediocre also. I had no problem anticipating the plot at every step and saw the ending coming from the horizon. Title: Re: Acadamy Awards Post by: jpark on February 02, 2006, 07:15:00 PM I found myself trying to follow the plot in some places - I enjoyed the challenge. The ending too caught me off guard. I guess this is why I thought it was mediocre also. I had no problem anticipating the plot at every step and saw the ending coming from the horizon. At every step? That's amazing. I am not so smart. Title: Re: Academy Awards Post by: Samwise on February 02, 2006, 07:28:26 PM For the love of TFSM please fix the title! Fixed. (It was driving me nuts too. I'm glad I'm not the only OCD spelling nazi around here.) Title: Re: Academy Awards Post by: Bunk on February 03, 2006, 11:03:02 AM I'm a movie junkie and I have seen exactly zero of those movies.
Title: Re: Academy Awards Post by: Yegolev on February 03, 2006, 12:56:54 PM The only one I have seen is Brokeback, and I can actually get behind (nyuk, nyuk) Ledger's nomination. I have seen better Ang Lee, but on the whole (nyuk, nyuk) it was rather good for a relationship movie. Normally I can't stand relationship movies of any kind, but the absence of people talking about their feelings or crying about shit was actually refreshing. Well, there was some of that, but not too much. Also, I got to see four different titties.
|