I'm glad Denzel won. Russell Crowe's role was just too hoaky for me. Maybe I'm biased against the actor because I hated the movie(well, I actually thought it was "decent" in the theatre)... but that entire flick seemed: 1. Ridiculously cheesy and a distortion of reality. That is not what schizophrenia is. And yes, the nature of the disease was important. And yes, they weren't an entirely faithful couple. Sorry Hollywood! Life isn't melodramatic like a movie... but instead of making movies more like life, they, of course... just alter facts. 2. I do agree that perhaps Russell Crowe should have an Oscar - but for "The Insider!"
Thank You - Thank You - Thank You !!! Hot: Uma was pushing up like their was no tomorrow - or she got the goo. Either way, damn she was hot. Halle and Denzel looked damn good too. Nicole Kidman looked great too. Not hot: J Connolly had no boobs. Gwenyth had too much eyeliner and droopy boobs - slut! Renee Zelwigger - not a good face night. J Lo had some weird hair...
My favorite part was when they announced the winners of some Indie flick, or short or documentary, and it was a woman and a man. Two names. Up jumps 2 men and 1 woman. When they go up to the stage, they present the Oscars to the woman and 1 man. The other dude is kinda like looking for his Oscar. The woman eventually hands him her Oscar. I laughed pretty hard at that crazy ass mother****er. THEY DIDNT CALL YOUR NAME YOU DUMB ****. THAT SHOULD TIP YOU OFF. BTW, LOTR was robbed. I hate the academy. The best actor, best supporting actor, and best picture awards were bull****. The Academy can suck my schweaty balls.
I thought the real winner was the show itself. I mean, it was freakin' long but really entertaining. By the way, coaxing Woody Allen out of New York was awesome and that first line, "That [the standing ovation] almost made up for the strip search" was hilarious as was his whole speech.
The Woody thing was very cool. Although it irritated me that the audience had to really *think* about whether or not to give him a standing o (Baz Luhrman finally started it) just because he's personally ethically dubious in his love life. I mean, the guy is an American treasure....
Although it seemed like it was straight out of an MTV Movie award show or something, the Stiller / Wilson thing was unquestionably the best 5 minutes of the night.
dimsie, sorry I didn't explain my position enough, even though you did so much to convince me that it was a masterpiece. Hope this is better for you: <b>I’ve always been a huge Robert Altman fan. I believe that may have begun sub-consciously when I watched Popeye over and over and over as a kid. However the first Altman movie I remember viewing as an “Altman” movie was The Player. Easily the top movie of that year, it’s one of my favorite movies of all-time. After that, I started renting many of his classics including Nashville, MASH, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Brewster McCloud, The Long Goodbye, and loved all of them. Of course, I’d go see all his new stuff as well-Short Cuts, Kansas City, Ready to Wear, Dr. T and the Women, and Cookie’s Fortune, and with the exception of Ready to Wear, I loved them all. He’s renowned for his unique style of directing, mainly the multi-conversational scenes, and because of this, I’ve always considered him one of my favorite directors. However, he made some untimely comments after the tragedies on September 11th that resulted in me losing some respect for the man. Basically, he blamed Hollywood for the attacks saying that the terrorists wouldn’t have thought to do that if they hadn’t seen it in a movie and that people should go see more “grown-up” films like his own. Whatever, you’re just bitter that your movies don’t make that much at the movies, and you’re simply using one of the worst disasters in history to further your career. Simply disrespectful. That’s also why I wasn’t too excited about seeing Gosford Park, which by the time it came out in my neck of the woods, it had received many honors (now nominated for Best Picture and two nominations for Best Supporting Actress). It’s the story of a weekend shooting party at the estate of Sir William McCordle and Lady Sylvia, where a murder takes place. The movie is shown from the point of view of both the upper crust snobs and their maids and valets. It’s supposed to be some sort of social commentary on England in the 1930s, but it really falls flat in my opinion. For one thing, there are so many people, it’s hard to keep straight who is who. Now, I’m no genius, but I’m relatively smart…if I don’t know who’s talking about who, that’s not a good sign about the movie. I thought I’d do well by figuring out which valet was assigned to which snob, but even that really didn’t occur until midway through the movie. Also, most of the jokes were repeated ad nauseum throughout the movie. Poor valet isn’t sophisticated. Rich person is too snobby. Americans are classless. They weren’t that funny the first time, and by the fifteenth time, they really weren’t amusing. The only pleasure I really derived from the movie was from Maggie Smith. She is extremely deserving of her nomination for Best Supporting Actress, especially since she was the only thing that really made the movie worth watching. For me, the first real disappointment I’ve had walking out of a Robert Altman movie-I hope it’s my last. </B> Not one of my better reviews, probably one of my worst. But I just really didn't enjoy the movie much at all. Outside of Maggie Smith, there wasn't one thing I liked. Better?
Hanks deserved it last year for Castaway. I guess they weren't about to hand Crowe a second consecutive Oscar, even if he did deserve it. Only two actors have repeated if I'm correct. Tom Hanks and Bogart? I don't intend to start a race war, but you guys think the heavy criticism Academy has been recieving lately had anything to do with two African Americans getting the top awards? I read that the voters of the Academy had been heavily criticized for their lack of respect for black actors throughout history. Of course black actors have been ignored for awards in the past, but maybe this time there was a little politicking going on behind the scenes to make up for past mistakes. The day there is a lifetime award for a African American actor, two other African American actors get the Best Actor and the Best Actress Awards.
Well, I don't think that there's any more pressure than what is given to them by studios who want their films nominated. How in the hell else can you explain Chocolat and The Cider House Rules getting nominated in 2000 and 1999, respectively? Denzel's performance in Training Day was outstanding, but it just wasn't a very good movie. However, I really think he won by default. Not enough people saw In the Bedroom for Tom Wilkinson to win (my personal choice), they weren't going to give it to Crowe again, Training Day was tons better than Ali so Smith wasn't going to get it, and Sean Penn's nomination, well, I dunno what to say about that one since I didn't see the movie. I'd like to think that they gave him the Oscar because they thought his performance was the best, but who knows? However, you'd never hear any questioning about why a white person won it like this. All that being said, Halle Barry completely deserved her win. It's a travesty that Monster's Ball wasn't nominated for Best Picture or Billy Bob nominated for Best Actor. That movie, and especially her performance, will go down as one of the best in history, I think.
I never like Woody. . i cannot think of a movie of his i liked he is SOOOOOO overrated to me. . . the fact that he molested his Adopted daughter doesn't help either Rocket River
The Oscars are a joke. They always have been. I really can't state that strongly enough. The nominations are made based about %50 on the performance/production and about %50 on hype. The actual awards are made based on about %10 performance/production and %90 hype. I only watch the ceremony now for the pageantry and entertainment value. I thought these Oscars were immensely entertaining. I was especially thankful that they got Cirque de Soleil to perform. What a fantastic choice. I saw Mystere in Vegas and it was amazing. They are amazing. Sidney Poitier's speech was the most inspiring the Oscars have ever seen. Halle Barry made me cry until she started thanking her lawyers and everyone else under the moon and reminding me of the ugliest side of Hollywood. Then I just wanted her off the stage. It was nice to see Denzel win. I've always like him and his work. I'm particularly thankful that I won't have to hear about it anymore. I had a few friends over to watch the ceremony last night, and we decided to have a little contest to see who could predict the most category winners correctly. I won, because I thought less about the work and more about the public opinion/hype. It was simple. The Oscars are a pageant. The saddest and most frustrating thing about them is that they are taken so seriously. They supposed to be some sort of reflection of the work. How absurd. You cannot qualify art. Holding a contest to see who is/created the best artist/art is not only absurd, it's stupid. Everyone has an opinion. Only a handful have taste, and that short list changes depending upon who you're asking. Noone won. Noone got robbed. Nothing changes. The "winners" will now command a higher salary when they sign their next contract. They will choose their next roles with the added pressure of having to uphold their new "image", hoping desperately that you don't judge them too harshly for the projects that they've already finished shooting and are slated for release this year. The real artists are rarely nominated and even more rarely win it. Just ask Ellen Burstyn. Merryl Streep deserves to win hands down any time she works on a project not designed to make her more accessible to the unforgiving public eye. Gary Oldman deserves a nomination in just about everything he does, but he rarely ever is and thankfully couldn't care less. Watching the pre and post Oscar shows makes me physically ill. Want to know why other nations hate us? Just watch that grotesque, plastic creature known as Joan Rivers interviewing and then critiquing everyone's dress. Watch the post Oscar show with the women from "The View". Listen to them gab and gossip about everyone's personal lives and how ghastly so and so looked in her dress....what was she thinking? And of course they started out with a fresh line of ridicule for Bjork for wearing her swan dress last year. Everyone loves to make fun of that one! Never mind the fact that she explained her best friend had made it for her. It had personal significance to her. Oh no! You can't do that! You're supposed to go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars on a designer name (it's never what are you wearing, it's who are you wearing?), didn't you know that??? You certainly can't wear something that is different that might actually have personal or emotional significance to you! God forbid!!! How embarrassing for her! She's an odd duck, that Bjork! I don't know about her! She's just wierd! A group of old, fat women who can't stand the fact that they are no longer as pretty as the women they're making fun of. Kudos to Barbara Walters for keeping her mouth shut during that shameful display of cynical mudslinging born of nothing more than insecurity and low self-esteem. I can't understand why she's on that show. Then of course they had an "expert" on who's express purpose was to tear down anything and everything he could about the evening. The funniest part of that segment was watching the idiot scramble for something, anything to make fun of. The moron even tried to make fun of Cirque de Soleil. Oh, yes, you're right, those costumes are wierd, aren't they? I'd never wear something like that! What was Cirque de Soleil thinking?!!! Nevermind that it was some of the most fantastic acrobatics you'll find in the world, they were just wierd, weren't they? What were they thinking? Yes, the Oscars are a sham. The whole premise behind them is absurd and poorly conceived. So please don't tell me someone was robbed, so and so was totally deserving, blah blah blah. The only thing at stake last night was money.
RM95: 1) I had no trouble at all following Gosford Park. Maybe it's a British period drama thing? There were a lot of issues being addressed that dealt specifically with class and gender interrelationships and their tenuousness, rather than just 'snobby rich guys' or 'unsophisticated valets'. Also, I'm not sure if you mean that the film stressed that Americans are 'classless' in terms of lacking class, or in terms of being overwhelmingly middle class. I think Altman was making the latter rather than the former point. I also think that your assessment of the film tends more toward 'I didn't like it' (that's fair enough, not everyone likes Miss Marple either) rather than 'it objectively sucked' (which I believe was your initial assertion). 2) I couldn't give a monkeys what Robert Altman thinks about 9/11. It has no bearing whatsoever on my opinion of his movies. Rocket River: 3) Likewise, Woody Allen's dubious ethical/moral standards are totally irrelevant to how great his movies are. If you're watching Manhattan, and you're looking at that fantastic black and white New York skyline with Gershwin playing, why would you be thinking 'but he's amoral so I can't like this movie'? It makes no sense to me. Gascon: 4) Of *course* they're a bunch of self-congratulatory idiots. But it's fun to watch them. Oh, and I *loved* Bjork's dress. (But I still thought the Cirque du Soleil stuff was dangerously dorky. I don't deal well with harlequin-ish stuff. Except maybe the 'Ashes to Ashes' video.)
I have to say Crowe was much more impressive in ABM than he was in Gladiator. ABM was a heck of a movie and from people who have known Nash comments (I have seen Nasser--the author of ABM speak about it, know others--1 first hand 1 second-- that ran into him at Princeton) and my by reading of the book Crowe nailed his mannerisms. Sure the screenplay took some liberties in making the delusions visual instead of auditory (like most Schziophrenics) to translate it better to the screen and some others liberties about Nash's life, but it wasn't meant to be a documentary. If people want more facts about Nash they can read the book. I say thumbs up to the awards it received. Also, whether you win depends also on your comp. and I havn't seen Denzel's performance so I can't compare it with Crowe's. I also think had Crowe not won last year (which he probably didn't deserve) it would have been much harder to award the award to someone else this year.
Check out "Small Time Crooks" Very Funny Woody Allen movie - I don't really care for him either, but I thought it was funny.
I don't give a rat's ass about objectively sucked, to me, nothing objectively sucks artwise. I either like a movie or I don't. I happened to think that Gosford Park sucked. Whether that's my subjective or objective opinion is irrelevant. I wasn't the only one who couldn't follow it. My girlfriend had a hard time as well, and we're both fairly smart people...well at least she is. Maybe it was those crazy accents. I understand what you're saying about Altman's comments being irrelevant as well. Unfortunately, sometimes it's human nature to take what people do or say into account when you're viewing their work. I still feel that Altman is one of my favorite filmmakers despite the comments.
I don't know, maybe you have to see them live to really cultivate an appreciation for them. I guarantee you, though, that most of the people in that audience were impressed. A friend of mine sitting next to me kept shaking his head and saying, "That shouldn't be possible, that shouldn't be possible."
Wow! Dimsie and I agree on something!!! YEAH!!! I have been so busy I haven't had time at all to check the board so I don't know if this has been posted yet or not (but it's short so shouldn't do any harm). "For the record, reporters made more of the black-actor-wins-an-Oscar angle than Washington. He invoked the name of tunesmith Randy Newman more than once (as when he asked whether Newman lost 16 times in a row before winning tonight, was that racism?) and helped a newspaper reporter with the wording on his lede: 'Say an actor won.'" http://entertainment.msn.com/oscars2002/backstage.asp I'm so glad for him and Berry. They're both very talented. I think this statement can be taken many different ways. Basically, it was history but when it comes down to it we are all people. As far as the Oscars being a joke, that's debatable. Sometimes, they have been right on the money and other times completely missed. Some of our greatest movies have never been rcognized by the Academy. It's about politics just like the rest of the world. I read that Crowe could have won for "The Insider" but he fell into that arrogant, Hollywood role and the Academy frowns upon that. Then he won for Gladiator because he was being a good boy before the Oscars. Crowe didn't win this year most likely because he was being an ass again recently. It shouldn't affect how people view his performance but apparently it does. So goes life. Overall, I enjoyed watching what I saw of the awards. Gascon, well said! You crack me up!
