Agreement with pretty much all of these. I still think In Bruges should have got some more recognition. I mean, that was a really good movie. A nice surprise
Jan 12 - 06:52 AM
Yeah it was really badly advertised. I remember when I went to go see it I was just expecting a fun comedy, but it turned out much more then that and I loved it. Also nobody is talking about Benjamin Button! I loved it and I think it desereves a lot of attention, though I cant lie I did like The Wrestler and Slumdog Millionare more.
Jan 12 - 08:21 AM
everyone IS talking about benjamin button..hense why its being talked about as a best picture candidate for the oscars and has been nominated for nearly every award that exists..
Jan 12 - 09:46 AM
LOL well I know that! I am saying while nobody on this board is talking about it. I thought it was great, but I liked The Wrestler and Slumdog more. Also agreed ABL2K2, sure Viola Davis was good in that one scene but shouldn't say Amy Adam's be the one considered more?!? Everyone loves a one great scene actor. Like I loved William Hurt in his one scene of A History of Violence but did I think he should have been nominated? NO. Its like I love that one guy from 8 Mile and Shotgun Stories two scenes from Revolutionary Road where he plays kind of a psycho but is really just a loud mouth realist, but I don't think he should get an oscar nod (well maybe him actually). I also think Michael Sheen should be getting more attention for FROST/NIXON, I liked him actually more then Frank Langella.
Jan 12 - 01:15 PM
You should not be nominated for an award based on the amount of screen time that you have in the movie, but for what you actually do with the role. Judi Dench won her Oscar for Shakespeare In Love, yet she was only in it for all of 15 minutes. The amazing thing about Davis' performance is that she took every single line that she was given and made such an emotional impact with them. I don't think that Winslet should be given an award because she had more scenes than the other nominees, that logic is a little ridiculous.
Supporting role winners are notorious for while not being the centerpiece of the film, making the largest impact with it. It's what Heath Ledger did in TDK, what Javier Bardem did last year with No Country For Old Men, what Jennifer Hudson did with Dreamgirls, and what Viola Davis is doing now in Doubt. To stand toe to toe with one of the greatest actresses of all time and to end up dominating your scene is what supporting roles are all about.
Kate Winslet in no way, shape, or form has a SUPPORTING role in The Reader, she is absolutely one of the leads. In my opinion, she shouldn't even be nominated in that category, but should be replaced by either Amy Adams or Tariji P. Henson.
Jan 12 - 01:53 PM
I'm not saying it based on screen time, but I think that the supporting actor category should be considered for the "REAL SUPPORTING ACTOR" and not someone who is only on screen for a few minutes.
Jan 12 - 02:08 PM
So how is that not a supporting role then, I don't get it?
You said that it's not about screen time, but then you turn around and mention how much time someone is actually on screen...it doesn't make sense.
Jan 12 - 02:13 PM
I mean that a supporting role is someone who is with the main actor throughout the film and leads to character development. I mean I don't see how her role really contributed to the movie overall, the movie could have easily been as good without her in all honesty. Her character wasn't very important." It's what Heath Ledger did in TDK, what Javier Bardem did last year with No Country For Old Men, what Jennifer Hudson did with Dreamgirls"All those actors contributed to the change of the main character through the film and were actually really important to the story. I mean do you really think that her role should even be considered with those roles of Ahton Chirguh and The Joker?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! 20 years down the road people will remember those roles, but Viola Davis will just be the actress who had a really good scene with Merryl Streep.
Jan 12 - 02:51 PM
For starters, she had more than just a really good scene, she had a great scene. If you read the reviews, they all say the same thing about her.
No disrespect meant man, but what book of rules are you reading that says that the supporting character "is with the main character through the entire film"? A performance is a performance, and there is no definition of how much screen time the supporting character has to share with the lead.
Also, to say that Davis wasn't an integral part of the story makes me think that you just weren't really paying attention to all of the parts of the story. She gave definition to the time that the film took place, a black woman squaring off against a white nun in that time was unheard of. Her reaction to what Streep's character was confronting her with also told of the sacrifices that people of color had to make in that time in order for their children to receive a higher education.
Jan 12 - 03:09 PM
Yes sure it was a great scene but I don't get how she added anything or changed the main character. Streep still went on her rampage in the film. Well if it was so pi-vital in the film that its unheard of for a black woman to stand up to a white nun then they should have gone into that into the movie. The son proved what era it was and what an african american needed to go through to get an education and thats the part that I PAYED attention to because that message was obviously more conveyed through the son. Also you missed the part where I said that a supporting actor plays a pi-vital role to the main actor which I didn't think she dead. Those messages that you are saying that those scenes represented I felt were more shown through the kid and he was the real character that showed how it was back then and not Viola Davis's character.
Jan 12 - 03:30 PM
I think Roger Ebert said it best with the following,"Something else happens. The real world enters this sealed, parochial battlefield. Donald's mother (Viola Davis) fears her son will be expelled from the school. He has been accused of drinking the altar wine. Worse, of being given it by Father Flynn. She appeals directly to Sister Aloysius, in a scene as good as any I've seen this year. It lasts about 10 minutes, but it is the emotional heart and soul of 'Doubt,' and if Viola Davis isn't nominated by the Academy, an injustice will have been done. She goes face to face with the pre-eminent film actress of this generation, and it is a confrontation of two equals that generates terrifying power."Key line? "It only lasts about 10 minutes, but it is the emotional heart and soul of 'Doubt'"Viola Davis' role added an emotional depth to the story that wouldn't have otherwise been there. The fact that she was able to accomplish such a goal in such a small scene entirely with Meryl Streep is why she was nominated, and will most likely be nominated at the Oscars as well.Screen time has practically nothing to do with how good or bad a person's performance is. If the performance is an exceptionally good one, then it deserves recognition, however small it is. Anyone with any experience in acting, whether on stage or on screen, understands that.Now, if you disagree with the opinion that Viola Davis gave a good performance, then that's another thing. But screen time doesn't really factor in in this case.
Jan 12 - 03:45 PM
Jesus Christ, I already established that I said I think a supporting character should only be considered if they actually attribute to a main character's arc and I said I didn't think she did but I thought she had a great scene. Also I am starting not to give a ***** about Roger Ebert thinks considering he gave Benjamin Button only 2 1/2 stars while he gives The Mummy 3, Hitman, Tomb Raider movies, Van Helsing, and Marley and Me more stars- Also him saying that The Golden Compass is better then any of The Lord of The Rings films and Harry Potter films just put a nail into the coffin into what I think about his opinion- also he gave fricking X-Files 2 3 1/2 stars and him giving W. 4 stars!!!!! Also I didn't really find her scene heartfelt. I mean she basically said she didn't give a crap that her son might be being molested so he can get an education, though I don't think he was and Father Flynn just had a special relationship with him consider that he was gay (all opinion of course).
Jan 12 - 04:35 PM
You are really missing the point man. What ChronoSpark and I are trying to say is that Davis gave one of the most powerful performances of the year, and that her part was an integral part of the story. You can discount Roger Ebert, but I agree with his review.
I'll tell you what, take a look at the Doubt review from your favorite major critic, and I can almost guarantee that it will read almost exactly the same way that Ebert's did, in regards to Davis' performance.
And I really have to disagree with the notion that her son's role showed enough of what race relations meant to a matter like that in that time period. You don't think that there is more than one perspective that can be shown regarding that, cause if so, I think that you are greatly discounting the premise of the film?
Like I said, no disrespect intended, but I feel like your perception of the film and Davis' role in it is a little off, especially when you look at the reviews and nominations that she's been receiving.
Jan 12 - 05:42 PM
I read Peter Traver's review, but I don't really have a favorite critic. Listen I am not hating on the film, I thought it was excellent for that matter. I said that I like Viola Davis and I thought her scene was great but I would rather see Amy Adams get nominated instead because I thought she was great and brought a lot more to the film "in my opinion". We could argue whether or not the son shows race issues which I believe he does and I don't think you do I guess, that part of the film is an opinion and not fact and can be right or wrong which I guess you don't agree with. Also I feel that it was a sub plot and race wasn't what the movie was about so I don't get why you are mistaking the movie for just being about race, the movie is obviously about DOUBT (duh, jk but seriously). I agree that race issues is a part of the film but is not as big of a factor that you are making it out to be. So I don't get how my perception is "off" because the film is called DOUBT and the main message of the film is DOUBT. Also I don't see how her getting nominations proves your opinion is right that the movie a big part about race. Also I think that the film shows race problems pretty well, I mean you see the kid get bullied and treated as an outcast which I think sums up race problems.
Jan 12 - 06:20 PM
You are right, race was a subplot, and doubt is a focus. But I think that race, along with social class and gender, played into the overall storyline of whether or not the allegations were true or false, and why the priest in question felt that he could take such liberties with this particular student. In that scene, a major revelation was made by Davis' character that lead the audience to question whether or not Streep was correct in pursuing the truth.
It seems that you feel like there should be an either/or in terms of Adams and Davis. I think that Amy Adams was fantastic in Doubt, and that she should be considered as a nominee as well. Now because she had a larger role or more screen time, I think, does not automatically qualify her for a nomination, but I stand by the fact that Davis' performance was by far the stronger of the two.
My original comment was that Kate Winslet should not be receiving supporting actress nominations or awards from any critics circles, commitees, or boards, because her role in The Reader is not a supporting role, it is a lead role. It would be similar to nominating Sean Penn for Best Supporting Actor for Dead Man Walking...it just doesn't make sense.
Jan 12 - 06:53 PM
Yeah I think you get what I am saying, I liked Viola Davis and she did hold her own with Streep but I Adams had a bunch of scenes with of course with Streep where she held her own. Yeah I guess her character was needed to release that sub plot of the kid, so yes I do agree with you on that point.
Jan 12 - 07:10 PM
And Roger Ebert says star ratings are frivolous and he dislikes them. He only does them to please the readers, who like having a "rating", but he believes that reviews should speak for themselves. If you think star ratings are the end-all-be-all of a critic's opinion (especially that of Roger Ebert), then I think you should pay a little more attention to film criticism in general.Supporting roles are not defined by "a contribution to the main character's arc", as a separate main role could do so as well. For example, in Amadeus, both Tom Hulce AND F. Murray Abraham had main roles (both were, in fact, nominated for Best Actor at the Oscars that year). In Brokeback Mountain, Randy Quaid's character arguably "does not contribute to the arc of the main character(s)", yet he is clearly playing a supporting role in the film.The entire point of my commenting was to point out that your definition of a "supporting role" is extremely flawed. Supporting roles are simply those that are secondary to that or those of the main actor or actors.
Jan 12 - 09:45 PM
Jesus Chrono I don't get why people keep B!tching over my comment. I said I respect Roger Ebert and I read his reviews. Also I don't give s ***** about the Oscars, I don't think a F^CKING great movie needs a gold statue to prove it is great. One last thing, if the oscars actually knew how to recognize great movies then Stanley Kubrick, Robert Altman, and Martin Scorsesse would have won best directors. Also I don't care for a voting system that won't consider foreign films for best picture even though there as great or better then the movies that are ussually considered for Best Picture. Also don't act like a smug @ss over my opinion, "your opinion is heavily flawed". You giving ***** about the oscars makes me think your whole mind is HEAVILY flawed.
Jan 13 - 09:54 AM
Wow. How juvenile. No matter. I fail to see when I ever gave any weight to the Oscars at all or even implied that a film "needs a golden statue to prove that it's great". I was simply speaking about recognition for a good performance, whether in the form of an Oscar or the form of a Critics Award. You're the one who originally got bent out of shape by Viola Davis even being nominated for a Golden Globe, a "golden statue", so to speak. Oh well. Oh, and for your information, Martin Scorsese did win Best Director. In 2006. For The Departed. Short memory, I assume. =)
Jan 13 - 10:07 AM
I put Scorecesse there because it took him forever to get an oscar and like I said above I think they gave it to him because they felt bad for snubbing them for all those years- I think everyone remembers The Departed cleaned house that year. Also you were implying basically that the oscars are always right, and it just pisses me off when people say "oh well the academy recognizes". I never got bent out of shape that she was nominated. I think I have said I think she had a great scene but I don't get why she was getting more attention then Amy Adams, then about every dog piled me including you for that. So go back and read my comments, you can read right?
Jan 13 - 11:54 AM
Glad you've calmed down (to some degree).I don't know how much you've paid attention to awards other than the Globes or the Oscars, but Amy Adams has been nominated by a number of outlets, including the Online Film Critics Society and the Screen Actors Guild Awards. The only awards that Viola Davis has been given for Doubt are from the St. Louis Film Critics and the Dallas-Fort Worth Critics Association. So even though many film critics are praising her work in Doubt, she's got getting a flood of recognition for it, like you seem to assume. I would go out and do some research on Critics and Guild Awards some. Thus far, Penelope Cruz is being awarded more than any of the other Supporting Actress possibilities.
Jan 13 - 12:35 PM
I know she is getting recognition but I just think she deserves more credit then Viola Davis is getting. Yes Amy Adams is getting recognized but not at the major award shows like the globes.
Jan 13 - 12:46 PM
Jokerboy i don't know- you might be right about the academy, personally i like them a lot of the time (although i feel Leonardo Dicaprio should have won an award by now) but i am just saying those may have been bad examples of people who the academy failed to honor- Martin Scorcesse won best director in 2006 for the departed- robert altman was honored with a lifetime achievement award from the academy- and Stan Kubrick won best effects (although he did deserve best director)
Jan 13 - 10:10 AM
Yeah I'm not going to count a life time achievemant award because I am talking about Best Director, and I think they just gave Scorcesse an oscar for The Departed because they felt bad- I mean the guy did Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and Taxi Driver. Also yeah I agree that Leo deserves some more recognition.
Jan 13 - 11:48 AM
I agree with both you and ChronoSpark. I think the Academy can be very hit or miss. And they are known for giving awards for bodies of work, as opposed to the actual work in the film they are up for, which I think happened with Kate Winslet at the Globes.
I think Martin S. actually deserved his Oscar for The Departed, but there have been many others that have been extremely questionable:
Whoopi Goldberg should have won for The Color Purple, but the gave it to her for Ghost.
Denzel Washington should have won for The Hurricane or Malcolm X, but he got it for Training Day.
Al Pacino should've won for Dog Day Afternoon, or the Godfather, part II, but he won it for Scent of A Woman instead.
Morgan Freeman won for Million Dollar Baby, but should have won for Driving Miss Daisy, or The Shawshank Redemption.
The list goes on and on. I just hate how some of the fanboys (not necessarily you Jokerboy) on here are so fickle. They are so quick to dump on these awards shows for not nominating The Dark Knight for best picture, or Robert Downey Jr. for Iron Man, but they are so quick to praise them for awareding Heath Ledger for his performance in TDK. You can't have it both ways people.
Jan 13 - 12:02 PM
LOL Zed I have never been on The Dark Knight for Best Picture band wagon. I said it earlier in one of my post. I love the movie but I think it is flawed, and I don't think it should go up for best picture. I think certain aspects should be recognized like cinematography, special effects, original score, and sure I think Heath Ledger deserves the praise he is getting but I don't really care if The Dark Knight doesn't get any big nominations this year, plus like I said I don't care too much for the oscars. I am a fanboy but I don't think I fall into that category. And don't get me wrong I love The Departed, but I just remember liking Pan's Labyrinth, Lives of Others, and Children of Men more. Also a good example of a questionable oscar choice is Shakespeare in Love winning best picture and not Saving Private Ryan.
Jan 13 - 12:41 PM
Exactly.Are the Oscars the end-all-be-all, final Best Picture of the year deciders? No. They hold a lot of weight because, for example, unlike the Golden Globes, where you have a bunch of practically unknown foreign journalists voting (Le Monde, for example, the biggest and most well-known French Newspaper, is not a voting party in the HFP), the voters for the Oscars are fellow Directors, Writers, Producers, Actors, etc.There are always people who are going to disagree with the decisions of the Academy. I believe Brokeback Mountain very much should have won Best Picture in 2005. I was not the only one who thought so, either. But I think American Beauty definitely deserved to win in '99. In the end, I think I have to remind myself of George C. Scott, and his opinion of the Oscars as "a million-dollar meat parade." Sure, I think he's a little extreme. But the point is well-made, none-the-less.
Jan 13 - 12:42 PM
LOL thats right CRASH won best picture, I remember to me that was a WTF moment. I liked CRASH but I mean if people are going to call Slumdog Millionaire unrealistic then go watch CRASH. I remember I think MUNICH and CAPOTE were my favorite that year, and I really liked Brokeback Mountain. Also SAMMILKY didn't his brother in Slumdog get shot up like a thousand times?
Jan 13 - 12:50 PM
2005 was a messed up year in general. Amy Adams should have won that year for Junebug, not Rachel Weisz for The Constant Gardener. I loved The Constant Gardener, but I just thought Amy Adams had a much more layered, nuanced performance.Though, admittedly, I also loved Crash. I just thought it didn't come close to Brokeback Mountain.
Jan 13 - 01:32 PM
Men that didn't bother me that Weisz won but yeah Amy Adams was great in Junebug.
Jan 13 - 01:51 PM
Now I have to add 'In Bruges' to my 'get-off-my-@ss-and-rent' list...
On a personal note, I don't like to be vengeful, but I have to admit I am deriving a small amount of malicious glee from the thought that everyone who was pissing/dissing/dismissing Heath Ledger as 'over-hyped' or some such nonsense is seething just about now.
FOR THE RECORD, I don't feel vindicated in my personal opinion simply because a movie wins an award-- I like it or I don't and don't need others to validate my opinion-- but I do know what it's like to feel that an award went to the wrong movie. SUCK IT, LEDGER-HATERS!
Jan 12 - 07:02 AM
gloden globes one word...................................depp
Jan 12 - 08:47 AM
im just glad mickey rourke and heath ledger won
Jan 12 - 08:56 AM
Kate deserved both wins on their own merits. A 15 year career of top notch performances without wins may have contributed in giving her a sentimental edge, but even without that history these were both amazing performances in challenging risky films that have alienated and threatened the comfort zones of some critics and audiences. Bravo to her! So great that heath Ledger won.I love that Colin Farrel won, mainly because In Bruges was one of my top films of the year. It proved that there is actually something to the Colin Farrel mystique. Good to see the film get some resognition.I haven't seen "Waltzing with Bashir" yet, but where was "Let the Right One In"? One of the best films of the year broadly speaking and definitely the best foreign language film.
Jan 12 - 08:57 AM
I don't think that people should be winning awards based on their catalouge of films. That's what lifetime achievement awards are for.
I think that Kate Winslet is probably one of the best actresses of her generation. I've seen both The Reader and Revolutionary Road, and she was outstanding in both, but did not deserve to win based on either of those performances.
Meryll Streep was much, much better in Doubt, as was Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married. As far as the supporting category goes, Viola Davis owned that category. Anyone that can steal a movie and impact the audience in the way that she did in about 15 minutes of performing deserves that award.
Jan 12 - 11:38 AM
i disagree, viola davis is less deserving of the award. i don't think one well acted scene warrants an award; she shouldn't even be nominated, in my opinion.
Jan 12 - 12:29 PM
I still haven't seen a good amount of these as my city has a crappy selection, but I was really happy with most of these and thought it was cool that there was so many upsets outside of Slumdog Millionaire's wins. Including that I'm a big Winslet, Rourke, Farrell, and Ledger fan. Was hoping Emma Thompson would win but couldn't stay upset after watching the very touched Sally Hawkins.
Jan 12 - 09:15 AM
Maybe I should give "The Wrestler" a chance. Anyway, glad Ledger won. Although "The Dark Knight" should've won Best Picture. And no nominations for "Iron Man"? Man! And "WALL-E" deserved more too.
And I'm so glad "30 Rock" sweeped. It's the best show televison, (along with "The Colbert Report".)
Anyway, I got 20 right and 5 wrong on my predictions. Did you do better?
I'd see all the nominees for Best Picture, except "The Reader" and "Happy Go Lucky". Tonight I'm seeing "Kung Fu Panda", hopefully I won't be dissapointed.
Lastly, I'm glad Speilberg FINALLY got his Cecil B. DeMille honorary award. And Sally Hawkins is so thin she's hard to look at. That is all.
Jan 12 - 09:58 AM
I saw The Reader last weekend, and I must say that I don't think it's good enough to win Best Picture. However, Kate Winslet's performance is amazingand deserved an Award.
I personally think that they nominated Kate Winslet's role in the Reader for supporting role just because they could not nominate her twice in the same category.
Jan 12 - 09:59 AM
Watching the Globes last night made me realize again how much I missed them in 2008. Simply put, they pick deserving winners almost every time.
Jan 12 - 10:01 AM
I was glad to see Benjamin Button get shut out, I'm a David Fincher fan and all but all this Oscar buzz is a year too late in my opinion. Zodiac is a hundred times better than Button and it got no love at all last year.
Jan 12 - 10:05 AM
Ledger winning means one thing, all you have to do to win an award is being a druggie that kills himself, and you wonder why more and more people committ suicide when **** like this is promoted. HE ODED YOU SHOULD NOT BE REWARDING PEOPLE FOR THAT.Plus 30 Rock winning proves one thing, Hollywood does not understand comedy.
Jan 12 - 11:23 AM
Ledger did not get an award just because he died. If you would see the Dark Knight you would see that his performance was without a doubt the best of the entire year. His acting as the Joker could be compared to Anthony Hopkins acting as Hannibal Lector. He would win that award without a doubt even if he didn't die.
Jan 13 - 08:05 AM
I'm very happy Rourke won.
They didn't have a best song?
If Springsteen's "The Wrestler" doesn't win, I'm going to burn things. . . 3-6 mafia winning almost cost me my television, and put a crack in my phone. . .
Jan 12 - 11:49 AM
I guess all I need to say is that I hope the Academy can be as fair and level-headed as the HFP was in choosing the winners. Rourke? Perfect. Winslet? Perfect. Ledger? Boyle? Perfect. Slumdog Millionaire? Perfect. About the only award I kind of shrugged about was Winslet winning for The Reader, Best Supporting Actress. I think that award should have gone to Marisa Tomei. I can only hope that The Academy chooses to at least recognize her performance with a nomination. The SAGs completely snubbed her in favor of Amy Adams for Doubt (a decent but not phenomenal performance... Amy Adams deserved it for Junebug in '05) and Taraji P. Henson, who, admittedly, was one of the few enjoyable things about Benjamin Button, but was not good enough to warrant a SAG nomination. I can only hope The Academy has better taste than the SAGs did this year.
Jan 12 - 12:57 PM
Really?No love for Clint?Still Surprised for the lack of NOMINATION for the Dark Knight's score..
Jan 12 - 01:27 PM
whats up with the dark knight not even being nominated??? but then again i loved slumdog..top 5 of all time..just would of like to see knight get nominated
Jan 12 - 01:36 PM
Ethan Hawke's 10 Best Movies
New Mockingjay teaser trailer
Pictures of great movie apes
New film by David Fincher