|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 10, 2010 22:13:12 GMT -5
So, some people are saying that Sean Penn only won because he portrayed a homosexual in a film and also that he was given the award because a film about two bisexual men didn't win best film a few years earlier? We all know the late great Paul Newman won an Oscar. But for what movie? The Hustler? Cool Hand Luke? Hud? The Sting? Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid? The Verdict? Nope, for The Color of Money. What? Yeah exactly. Or Scorsese, he won for The Departed. And I'm sure most folks will agree that was less deserving the win than Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, or heck even Casino and so on so on. That's the nature of payback Oscars. Of course then again, maybe Hollywood truely thought Penn was the best actor that year. But conspiracy theories are much much much more fun.  Its like 2002 when Scorsese and Rob Marshall (Chicago) allegedly split the Best Director vote, which allowed for Polanski to win the Oscar. True? Who knows, and it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 10, 2010 22:13:23 GMT -5
That's one of the theories, not my theory, though. But the Academy does have a trend of giving "owed" awards. But I'm not accepting that jive. Well, if you ever hear anyone mention that as a theory, politely remind them that in the same year Brokeback Mountain lost, the Best Actor award was given to a man for a portrayal of a homosexual, Philip Seymour Hoffman for Capote. An award that was most deservedly given. Hoffman is one of my favorite actors. Loved him since Twister where he performed the role of a redneck Oklahoma storm chaser team member perfectly(I should know, I've met many people who behave just like his character did). |
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 10, 2010 22:15:24 GMT -5
That's one of the theories, not my theory, though. But the Academy does have a trend of giving "owed" awards. But I'm not accepting that jive. Well, if you ever hear anyone mention that as a theory, politely remind them that in the same year Brokeback Mountain lost, the Best Actor award was given to a man for a portrayal of a homosexual, Philip Seymour Hoffman for Capote. Or better yet, why Brokeback Mountain won Best Director yet lost Best Picture. That's always wacky because usually those two prizes go hand in hand like peas and carrots. Fun fact, that ballot splitting has never happened two years in a row. Though not as ridiculous as 1972 when The Godfather (the greatest American movie) won the top prize, yet Francis Ford Coppola lost director to Bob Fosse, who shot Cabaret. Cabaret is a pretty good movie. But it aint The Godfather! |
|
|
|
Post by BlackHoleMark on Jan 10, 2010 22:19:30 GMT -5
Crash is my least favorite movie of all time. Goodness, I HATE that movie.
Oh, and I voted for No Country. Maybe not the one that will last, but my favorite out of the ones I've seen on the list.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jan 10, 2010 22:20:26 GMT -5
Well, if you ever hear anyone mention that as a theory, politely remind them that in the same year Brokeback Mountain lost, the Best Actor award was given to a man for a portrayal of a homosexual, Philip Seymour Hoffman for Capote. Or better yet, why Brokeback Mountain won Best Director yet lost Best Picture. That's always wacky because usually those two prizes go hand in hand like peas and carrots. Fun fact, that ballot splitting has never happened two years in a row. Though not as ridiculous as 1972 when The Godfather (the greatest American movie) won the top prize, yet Francis Ford Coppola lost director to Bob Fosse, who shot Cabaret. Cabaret is a pretty good movie. But it aint The Godfather!Meh, I'm willing to let that one slide. Cabaret was one of the better late musicals and certainly deserved something, and total sweeps by one movie are boring (even one as good as Godfather). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2010 0:15:19 GMT -5
I have seen all of those films but Chicago. I would have to say LOTR Return of the King. It's one of the greatest Epic films ever made and everyone knows Epics are probably the hardest films to make but with higher risk comes higher reward. Also before the movies were made, it was always been thought that a movie adaptation of those books would just be impossible to make.
It's one of the greatest cinematic triumphs ever.
|
|
MCMGM
Vegeta
WC's Official Jeff Buckley Stalkeress.
Red Sonic My Ass
Posts: 9,184
|
Post by MCMGM on Jan 11, 2010 9:21:07 GMT -5
So, some people are saying that Sean Penn only won because he portrayed a homosexual in a film and also that he was given the award because a film about two bisexual men didn't win best film a few years earlier? Yeah, I noticed that as well. |
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Jan 11, 2010 9:31:00 GMT -5
So, some people are saying that Sean Penn only won because he portrayed a homosexual in a film and also that he was given the award because a film about two bisexual men didn't win best film a few years earlier? We all know the late great Paul Newman won an Oscar. But for what movie? The Hustler? Cool Hand Luke? Hud? The Sting? Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid? The Verdict? Nope, for The Color of Money. What? Yeah exactly. Or Scorsese, he won for The Departed. And I'm sure most folks will agree that was less deserving the win than Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, or heck even Casino and so on so on. That's the nature of payback Oscars. Of course then again, maybe Hollywood truely thought Penn was the best actor that year. But conspiracy theories are much much much more fun. Its like 2002 when Scorsese and Rob Marshall (Chicago) allegedly split the Best Director vote, which allowed for Polanski to win the Oscar. True? Who knows, and it doesn't matter. I agree that payback and "lifetime achievement" Oscars are an absolute reality, but I thought Newman's work in Color of Money was damn good. The point, I suppose, is that while it may pale in comparrisson to iconic performances, it makes the stand-alone work no less awesome. Same too for The Departed. Extremely well directed, although not an instant classic like Raging Bull was all those years ago. |
|
4real
Wade Wilson
Posts: 27,837
|
Post by 4real on Jan 11, 2010 10:39:59 GMT -5
I'm going to say Gladiator because it was one of my favourite films as a teen and imo richly deserved its Oscar. While I love NCFOM I still think There Will Be Blood should have won over it.
The only other film I've seen in that list is Slumdog which was an excellent film but not better than Gran Torino, The Dark Knight or The Wrestler which weren't even nominated.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,475
|
Post by bob on Jan 11, 2010 11:09:49 GMT -5
Gladiator
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jan 11, 2010 12:53:22 GMT -5
No Country was my favorite out of that list so that's my vote, but I just wanted to add that I don't see what's so bad about certain "message movies". Crash was insanely fun and over-the-top, and Penn was incredible in Milk.
Not that Rourke was bad, but his performance was a bit more forced and cloying, as if the movie was yelling at me, "Cry for Randy, dammit! Feel for this poor wretch or you're a bad person!" Penn, on the other hand, got Milk down pat and the film did its part by just showing what happened, and thus allowed me to make up my own mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jan 11, 2010 13:38:40 GMT -5
So, some people are saying that Sean Penn only won because he portrayed a homosexual in a film and also that he was given the award because a film about two bisexual men didn't win best film a few years earlier? Yeah, I noticed that as well. People, Milk probably won because of Prop 8. olitical Oscars are given out all the time. He is no way deserved that award for his acting, but its understandable given the awards history. I voted Return of the King, it was more an Oscar for the whole series which was truly an incredible accomplishment. Worst, easily Chicago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2010 13:41:07 GMT -5
I haven't actually liked a one of them. Seen the vast majority (not Return of the King for instance, but I hated the first two so not going to bother), just don't really consider any of them to be any good.
In case anyone wants to know why I hated Lord of the Rings, a big part of it is the fact that it really should have been done in two movies, if not one. While I have not seen Return of the King admittedly, both Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers were dragged out way, way, way too much, and honestly could have had an hour trimmed from each with absolutely nothing lost in the transition. Hell, if you cut out a few characters who ultimately amount to nothing you could probably easily combine them into one movie.
|
|
lionheart21
Patti Mayonnaise
Once did a thing...
Posts: 30,566 
|
Post by lionheart21 on Jan 11, 2010 16:10:44 GMT -5
Return of the King would win the Oscar, but I'd vote for Gladiator
|
|
