Oscar Reflections

[TheCalvinator24]

All I want to know is why are clem's and Sprots' avatars so similar that I have to look carefully to make sure who I'm reading?

[danielh41]

- I still maintain that "Slumdog" will shortly be relegated to the same fate as "The Greatest Story Ever Told," "Oliver!" and "How Green Was My Valley": worst Oscar Best Picture Winners. I'd add "Crash" to that list, but I may be in the minority, which kind of defeats the purpose.

"The Greatest Story Ever Told" is not one of the worst Oscar Best Picture winners since it didn't actually win Best Picture. I don't think it was even nominated for Best Picture.

[danielh41]

- I still maintain that "Slumdog" will shortly be relegated to the same fate as "The Greatest Story Ever Told," "Oliver!" and "How Green Was My Valley": worst Oscar Best Picture Winners. I'd add "Crash" to that list, but I may be in the minority, which kind of defeats the purpose.

"The Greatest Story Ever Told" is not one of the worst Oscar Best Picture winners since it didn't actually win Best Picture. I don't think it was even nominated for Best Picture.

However I would vote "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952) as the worst Oscar Best Picture winner. And to think that that Cecil B. DeMille mess won over "Singin' in the Rain," and "High Noon."

[KillerTomato]

This is what I get for typing while tired. Of course I meant that sucky circus flick.

[SportsFan68]

All I want to know is why are clem's and Sprots' avatars so similar that I have to look carefully to make sure who I'm reading?

I'm guessing that reading the post would work just as well.

Just goes to show, we have two of the most darlingest kids in North America to photograph and make into avatars.

I'm gonna change mine a little bit today.

[franktangredi]

- I still maintain that "Slumdog" will shortly be relegated to the same fate as "The Greatest Story Ever Told," "Oliver!" and "How Green Was My Valley": worst Oscar Best Picture Winners. I'd add "Crash" to that list, but I may be in the minority, which kind of defeats the purpose.

"The Greatest Story Ever Told" is not one of the worst Oscar Best Picture winners since it didn't actually win Best Picture. I don't think it was even nominated for Best Picture.

However I would vote "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952) as the worst Oscar Best Picture winner...

I would agree with that -- taking into account both the movie itself and the quality of what it beat (High Noon.)

How Green Was My Valley is on that list only because of what it beat, namely Citizen Kane. On its own, it's a very good movie. As for Oliver!, it stands up pretty well amongst the nominated films that year. You can't blame it for beating 2001 because they didn't nominate 2001.

You Can't Take It With You was a bad choice over Grand Illusion -- one of my top three films of all time -- but I think it's amazing enough that they nominated a French film in 1938, so I'm willing to let that slide.

I know there are people who put Chariots of Fire in this category, but I'm not one of them. I thought that was a well-deserved win.

[silverscreenselect]

"The Greatest Story Ever Told" is not one of the worst Oscar Best Picture winners since it didn't actually win Best Picture. I don't think it was even nominated for Best Picture.

However I would vote "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952) as the worst Oscar Best Picture winner...

I would agree with that -- taking into account both the movie itself and the quality of what it beat (High Noon.)

How Green Was My Valley is on that list only because of what it beat, namely Citizen Kane. On its own, it's a very good movie. As for Oliver!, it stands up pretty well amongst the nominated films that year. You can't blame it for beating 2001 because they didn't nominate 2001.

You Can't Take It With You was a bad choice over Grand Illusion -- one of my top three films of all time -- but I think it's amazing enough that they nominated a French film in 1938, so I'm willing to let that slide.

I know there are people who put Chariots of Fire in this category, but I'm not one of them. I thought that was a well-deserved win.

Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan. The Weinsteins conned everyone into believing that Ryan was only a well-edited set piece followed by two hours of miscellaneous war footage while Shakespeare was an "actor's showcase." For the record, look at the actors in Ryan and how they did and what they've done since then. Spielberg got career performances from Diesel, SIzemore, Pepper, Ribisi and company. Ryan was 98% of a masterpiece surrounded by a poorly chosen framing device in which Spielberg or his screenwriter attempted to duplicate what worked (and was necessary) in Schindler's List with something that wasn't needed here. Shakespeare was a decent romantic comedy but nothing more that has already long faded from most people's film consciousness.

[reeg2223]

Steve Martin was also in Baby Mamma, or whatever that Tina fey/ Amy Poehler film was called. They were really funny!

[KillerTomato]

I'm sure I'll have more to say to both Frank and SSS later when I can quote better (it's a bitch on my iPhone), but I will say that "You Cant Take It With You" is a terrific flick, and "Saving Private Ryan" is two magnificent 20-minute shorts with 2 hours of pedestrian boredom in between. Saying that Vin Deisel or Ed Burns gave career-high performances islike saying how great an actor that Barney Rubble is in that in that one episode with Ann Margrock...they're still lousy, they just weren't as lousy as usual.

I rewatched both of these movies recently (I'm currently up to"Star Wars" in my collection) and I STILL think "Shakespeare " is the better movie by miles. It's not just the acting (which is worlds better than in "Ryan"), but the writing is simply wonderful.

[reeg2223]

I think ultimately Rourke played a version of himself in a smaller indy film, and Penn transformed himself into a different character (softer, more charming, with a different energy than MYSTIC RIVER, etc.) in a bigger budgeted film. Rourke was the best Rourke he could be, but Penn was Harvey Milk, and deserved the win.
SSS--it's stretching the argument to say Harvey Milk was a crazy character.If he was, we could use more crazy in the world. It's enough to say playing characters who are either afflicted or die in the picture tend to win. That's drama baby!
It also always helps to play a real life person. Oscars often go bio pics!

[franktangredi]

I'm sure I'll have more to say to both Frank and SSS later when I can quote better (it's a bitch on my iPhone), but I will say that "You Cant Take It With You" is a terrific flick, and "Saving Private Ryan" is two magnificent 20-minute shorts with 2 hours of pedestrian boredom in between. Saying that Vin Deisel or Ed Burns gave career-high performances islike saying how great an actor that Barney Rubble is in that in that one episode with Ann Margrock...they're still lousy, they just weren't as lousy as usual.

I rewatched both of these movies recently (I'm currently up to"Star Wars" in my collection) and I STILL think "Shakespeare " is the better movie by miles. It's not just the acting (which is worlds better than in "Ryan"), but the writing is simply wonderful.

I agree that You Can't Take It With You is terrific, though it doesn't rank with Capra's greatest (It Happened One Night, Mr. Smith, Meet John Doe, It's a Wonderful Life). I would have voted for it over most of the other nominees that year (except maybe The Adventures of Robin Hood). My only point is that Grand Illusion is one of the great masterpieces of world cinema, and since it actually got nominated, it dwarfs everything else on the list that year.

Am I allowed to like and appreciate both Saving Private Ryan and Shakespeare in Love? Or do I have to put down one in order to praise the other?

[Jeemie]

I'm sure I'll have more to say to both Frank and SSS later when I can quote better (it's a bitch on my iPhone), but I will say that "You Cant Take It With You" is a terrific flick, and "Saving Private Ryan" is two magnificent 20-minute shorts with 2 hours of pedestrian boredom in between. Saying that Vin Deisel or Ed Burns gave career-high performances islike saying how great an actor that Barney Rubble is in that in that one episode with Ann Margrock...they're still lousy, they just weren't as lousy as usual.

I rewatched both of these movies recently (I'm currently up to"Star Wars" in my collection) and I STILL think "Shakespeare " is the better movie by miles. It's not just the acting (which is worlds better than in "Ryan"), but the writing is simply wonderful.

I couldn't get through Ryan- the imagery didn't gross me out or anything- it was just as boring as hell. And I usually can't suck up enough stuff about World War II!!

However, I hated Shakespeare in Love too- found nothing at all witty or engaging about the writing/dialogue.

So if Frank can like both, I can hate both!

[danielh41]

Of the relatively recent Best Picture winners, "The English Patient" is the one I can't stand. I barely got through one viewing of it. How that won over "Fargo" is beyond me...

[Appa23]

Why all of the fighting, when clearly Titanic is the worst "Best Picture" winner ever!

I also will say that I have never seen a Tom Hanks movie where I did not like (and usually love) his performance (although DaVinci Code came close). FrankT nailed the "beauty" of his performance in Philadelphia.

I also think that you are kidding yourself if you do not think that people were trying to make a statement about Prop 8 by voting for Penn over Rourke.

[TheCalvinator24]

Of the relatively recent Best Picture winners, "The English Patient" is the one I can't stand. I barely got through one viewing of it. How that won over "Fargo" is beyond me...

To me, the bigger travesty is that O! Brother, Where Art thou? didn't even get nominated.

[Jeemie]

Of the relatively recent Best Picture winners, "The English Patient" is the one I can't stand. I barely got through one viewing of it. How that won over "Fargo" is beyond me...

You and Elaine Benes!

http://www.geocities.com/seinfeld_sound ... atient.mp3

"Quit telling your stupid story about your stupid desert and die already!"

[Jeemie]

Hanks just spent most of that movie looking like crap...grow a beard, shave your head, and put some make-up...how hard could that be?

Could you do it? (And be convincing, I mean.)

You can dispute whether he deserved the Oscar, but don't denigrate what he did.

I'm an actor, and I would say that Hanks did more than that. He didn't just portray a guy looking like crap, he had to accurately play a progressive disease at different stages. He had to display a pretty wide range of emotions. His face is marvelously expressive -- that scene on the stand where he had to unbutton his shirt, and the man in him was embarrassed while the lawyer in him was realizing that his lawyer just scored a major point, and his body was failing at the same time -- was remarkably well played. And I'm not sure I could have played that scene where he described the opera nearly as well as he did.

I don't think I would have voted for him over Anthony Hopkins that year, but Hanks did a terrific job in that role.

Probably not me- last acting I did was in 9th Grade- but it wasn't Oscar-worthy, and not even, as I have said, the best acting in the film itself.

I oftentimes exaggerate to make a point, Frank- and the point was, when you're not even the best actor in your own movie, how can you get the best actor award for the entire film season?

[franktangredi]

I also think that you are kidding yourself if you do not think that people were trying to make a statement about Prop 8 by voting for Penn over Rourke.

Every single one of them? There are many different people voting for many different reasons.

We've had people on this very board who acknowledged how good Penn was while still being very much against gay marriage.

And wouldn't it have been more of a statement to vote for Milk for Best Picture if that's what they were trying to do?

[Rexer25]

I also think that you are kidding yourself if you do not think that people were trying to make a statement about Prop 8 by voting for Penn over Rourke.

Every single one of them? There are many different people voting for many different reasons.

We've had people on this very board who acknowledged how good Penn was while still being very much against gay marriage.

And wouldn't it have been more of a statement to vote for Milk for Best Picture if that's what they were trying to do?

Frank...

You're arguing...

with a lawyer...

who's never wrong!

Save your energy for more important matters. Like finding Sunflower a place to live.

[franktangredi]

I oftentimes exaggerate to make a point, Frank- and the point was, when you're not even the best actor in your own movie, how can you get the best actor award for the entire film season?

As I said, I'm not arguing about whether Hanks deserved the Oscar. I was just disputing your statement that what he did was easy. If you were exaggerating, and didn't really mean what you were saying, then I guess there was no need.

[Appa23]

I also think that you are kidding yourself if you do not think that people were trying to make a statement about Prop 8 by voting for Penn over Rourke.

Every single one of them? There are many different people voting for many different reasons.

We've had people on this very board who acknowledged how good Penn was while still being very much against gay marriage.

And wouldn't it have been more of a statement to vote for Milk for Best Picture if that's what they were trying to do?

I didn't say every voter, did I?

However, do you really think that a good number of actors would not be inclined to making some political statement by voting for Penn's portratal of a gay activist?

Look at the history of votes/winners/nominations in recent years.

[trevor_macfee]

Of the relatively recent Best Picture winners, "The English Patient" is the one I can't stand. I barely got through one viewing of it. How that won over "Fargo" is beyond me...

You and Elaine Benes!

http://www.geocities.com/seinfeld_sound ... atient.mp3

"Quit telling your stupid story about your stupid desert and die already!"

I agree!

I was bored out of my mind by The English Patient.

The only movie I can think of that I've been more disappointed seeing was The Piano. All my friends with what I thought was taste in movies raved about it. I drove an hour to a theater to see it. The drive was the best part of the experience. All I really cared about was why they were building all those fences (in the background of several scenes were people building fences). Was it to keep people out? People in? Or was it some sort of animals? THAT would've been a great movie - more about the fences! Just throw that dang piano overboard already - and maybe the whole cast and crew with it. . . .

Sorry. It still touches a nerve.

[lilyvonschtupp26]

I loved the Oscar show, primarily because of Hugh Jackman. I thought he did a wonderful job.
The set was impressive as well.

At my library meeting last week, we broke into an impromptu version of the Bollywood close of Slumdog. It
was a hoot. Our supervisor walked in and said, "Great. It's an aerobic meeting" and joined us. It was a hoot.

[danielh41]

Of the relatively recent Best Picture winners, "The English Patient" is the one I can't stand. I barely got through one viewing of it. How that won over "Fargo" is beyond me...

To me, the bigger travesty is that O! Brother, Where Art thou? didn't even get nominated.

O! Brother Where Art Thou? is one of my favorites, and looking back on that year, it seems strange that it wasn't even nominated when something like Gladiator took the Best Picture Oscar. Plus, "the Soggy Bottom Boys" was the answer to my $125,000 question when I was on Millionaire...

[KillerTomato]

It is my humble opinion that EVERY Coen brothers movie should have been Best Picture. "Hudsucker Proxy" and "Barton Fink" and "Miller's Crossing" and "Fargo" and "Raising Arizona" wuz all robbed.