 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
As a watcher of these Academy awards over the last few years I am continually amazed at the voting. I don't want to blast Gladiator. Indeed, I enjoyed it and even bought the DVD but it has got to be one of the worst films in 10 years to win best film. Granted it was a terrible year for film, but still.In 1994 - Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show, The Shawshank Redemption and Four Weddings and a Funeral, were in the running. Although the last of these was forgettable the other four are clearly superior films than all the films up for the awards in this years' awards.
For Gladiator to even be nominated in the visual or F/X departments is truly disgusting. The Patriot nominated for Cinematography??? Please. The Cell losing to The Grinch for Makeup??
Okay so who cares about the techie awards? but what about the major categories. Actor - Russell Crowe - I like Crowe but any 6 foot actor could have done this...that includes Arnie. Please. I was hoping that Hanks would not win for his highly overrated performance in Cast Away, but losing to Crowe was something else again.
One film that got missed was Sunshine...a Canadian Hungarian film about one Hungarian-Jewish family spanning more than 50 years and their battles with communism and Nazi Fascicm. A film that had an Amercan producer such as Mirimaz put up the money it would have cleaned up the awards. Ralph Fiennes(Schindler's List, English Patient, Oscar and Lucinda, Strange Days, Quiz Show, End of the Affair) was clearly better than the one note or overbloan performance of Crowe or Hanks. Unfortunately Sunshine is too deep and intelligent for Academy voters...Give them an axe weilding epic and their happy.
I digress:
Crouching Tiger was the most effective of all the films especially for those unfamiliar with the Martial Arts techniques. In many ways the film reminded me of Raiders of the Lost Ark...any film that does that has done something.Oh, and no I didn't have a problem with Julia for I doubt any of the other actresses could have portrayed the character of Erin Brokevich as well.
As bad as 2000 was for quality films...2001 will likely be worse...Has anyone else noticed how hard they are pushing Pearl Harbour...besides the fact that the makers seem not to realize that the bombing occurred on a Sunday morning just before 8:00AM and yet everyone is out playing baseball or making love in a lake, possible I suppose but questionable(and this is just the trailer - Ugg. Any movie that gets advertised this much is bound to be a dog.
Follow Ups:
Agreed, on nearly all such points. I very much enjoyed **Gladiator** in the theatres as well, purchased the DVD, but have subsequently had my experience of it effectively ruined by virtue of its Best Picture award. It's a fun movie, to be sure, but it's by no means a superior or groundbreaking film; to confer such a mantle upon it is, I suspect, to risk outright embarrassment. In this regard, **Gladiator** now joins the likes of **Braveheart** and **Titanic**.Bad air! Bad air!
I liked Russell Crowe in **The Insider** and felt that he probably should actually have won the award for Best Actor *last* year. In this respect, I was shocked that he won, actually (he seemed to be in a daze as well) -- although I don't know that he faced quite so formidable a collection of opposition this time around. Good for him, I say.
Look, I've nothing against Julia Roberts, but how is it that Ellen Burstyn didn't win the award for Best Actress in recognition of her performance in **Requiem for a Dream**? I mean, c'mon, we've witnessed a deluge of Erin Brockovich-type characters in cinema over the past two decades (usually strutting their well-trod stuff in equally "well-made" formula films [to borrow (a now desparaging term) from 19th century French dramatist (sic) Alexandre Dumas Fils] with graftable plots, instantly transplantable characters and poignantly encouraging finales). Burstyn twisted, contorted and effectively broke herself to deliver the *second* performance of a lifetime in **Requiem**, and she's rewarded with...what? A joke at Russell Crowe's expense?
Bad air! Bad air!
Among major studio releases, I thought **O Brother Where Art Thou** the finest film of the year. Critics tend to view Coen Brothers' efforts with a single set of lenses, however ("Keen, still *another* suitably offbeat Coen Brothers' film; let's pigeonhole it right *here*, shall we?"), so I suspect that it'll take some time before their latest effort is proper digested.
***Agreed, on nearly all such points. I very much enjoyed **Gladiator** in the theatres as well, purchased the DVD, but have subsequently had my experience of it effectively ruined by virtue of its Best Picture award. It's a fun movie, to be sure, but it's by no means a superior or groundbreaking film; to confer such a mantle upon it is, I suspect, to risk outright embarrassment.He-he-he... embarrasment, you say? I would agree with you, if the issuing agency was not the Academy, the same "academy" that gave Oscar to that real dog of films - "Marthy". Plus few other over the years. And yes, one of my all-time favotire puke-inducers - the mighty Titanic piece of shit.
I suspect you are completely right on those formulaic "Made for Lifetime TV" movies and Ellen - although I have not seen the film, but now want to do so. She has taste and talent, something Julia believes you simply buy and keep in your freezer until needed.
I hate to see you get your nose(s) out of joint on this topic. Everyone is a film critic today! As a professional (look out! :-} )
in this field for over 30 years I have to stress that nobody but folks in Peoria think anything about these...certainly not people who MAKE movies. Some movie beancounters care, professionally, but always dissociate themselves from their commercial tasks when talking about films personally. No other art form has such a strong (read: opinionated!) and enthusiastic fan base... The films that win are voted on by other professionals who may or may not have seen the films. I worked for the Academy for both nominations and then to make sure people had access to films voted on and I can assure you many voters don't even bother seeing the films. And no one I've ever met in the industry treats them seriously as indicators of aethethic quality--its a beauty contest that the biz uses to focus attention worldwide on its products and thereby increase the profits. Period.For those who bemoan the fact that very interesting, even artistically challenging films like "Sunshine" don't get Academy Awards. Please. If there is any serious studio money to be made, then "Sunshine" gets a nomination. As H'wood sees it, there are plenty of festivals for artistic films. The Academy Awards are for commercial features in which their own community has a financial stake. If their marketing and advertising people can convince people that there is any artistic merit in the film (and if that's the only way to put fannies in the seats...to make self-proclaimed serious filmgoers feel good about themselves for supporting a film ) then so much the better.
From reading on this site, I think a lot of people would be surprised at the esoteri/artistic film tastes of the typical H'wood celebrity or tech person seen at the ceremony--they are much more likely to see an art film than the junk awarded prizes Monday night. Which often makes the actors inordinately defensive/guilty that they don't support the ART of film--and opt instead for the best paying gig.
Although I disagree that "no other art form has such an opinionated and enthusiastic fan base." Rock music, anyone?Anyway, I can amplify celluloid's views by noting that even when Academy members *do* see the pictures, they generally do so at home from tapes furnished by the studios. (There's a word for these but it slips my mind.) And by the way, so do film critics, increasingly. To my mind film is a *theatrical* experience that requires a large screen, a dark house and an audience. If I think a movie is worth seeing, I never wait for the video -- I pay my $5.50 and go. It's the only way to experience the art-form, the way its creators intended.
In addition I worry about the quality factor. From what I gather, when they say tape, they mean tape, not the far superior DVD. And what kind of TVs and sound systems do Academy members employ? Mostly crap, I bet. PLus, the pause button can utterly destroy the continuity of a theatrical film.
clark
We all know that most actors are indeed "quiet intellectuals". Ever watched "Inside the Actor's Studio"?And where do you still find those $5.50 places? The cheapest shithole around here, with sticky vynil seats, is at least $7. Last I checked you didn't live in Poland...
And as far as the DVD quality - many are recorded below what the VHS CAN deliver... so go figure...
v
.
Your last paragraph reminds me why I like Ralph Fiennes as an actor...has only chosen films that he likes and the only film that could really be "Mainstream" was the dismal Avengers. However, he grew up watching it and had the chance. He's past up the big money roles or big fame roles like the Saint and being the next James Bond. Also passing up on Oceans'11...a sure money grab.Of course you are correct...and not to get upset at hollywood...4 of the films nominated made my top ten list...although there are about 4 films that got high critical praise that I have not seen.(I'm an amateur critic myself...and although Roger Ebert likens film criticism to being a Medical Doctor "you would want a professional operating on you so you should have a professional critic"(not exact quote...but c'mon.)
The awards usually get a few of the years best films right so I should not complain too much.This has always bothered me about the credibility of the awards...but they did choose the English Patient(arguably an art-house film). That was to bring profits up because it was still in theaters...Gladiator was already on video...they should have chosen Chocolat!LOL
I would like to see a board of North American(U.S. and Canada) film critics have a conglomorated award show...at least critics see the films...and I doubt they would pander solely to the art house crowd. Looking at Ebert's 10 list Almost Famous #1 Traffic and Crouching Tiger was there.
Gladiator wouldn't have made it, but then it should'nt.
nt
Appologise for some of the typo's. S/B Miramax and the sentence should read if it had had an american Producer like Miramax(how Chocolat got nominated only Miramax could know).
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
