Past Oscar Mistakes | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Past Oscar Mistakes

Joined
Aug 3, 2003
VIETgrlTerifa,
ITA with your whole post--almost, except that the race between Paltrow and Blanchett was close. But, ah, the great Fernanda Montenegro and "Central Station." To anybody who has never seen it, rent it. You'll never forget it. "Central Station" is one of a handful of films I bought on DVD. I'd buy more, but you know how it is with the bucks. Fortunately, most of the movies I like nobody else does so I get great deals on them on Ebay. Got Adrian Lyne's version of "Lolita" for a penny--plus $5.99 S&H, lol.

DAVID THEWLIS! In "Naked" and almost anything he's done. And don't get me started on the cold shoulder the Academy always gives the brilliant Mike Leigh. "Secrets and Lies" nominations were a miracle. But then that was the year everybody complained about the Academy nominating all these strange, depressing independent films. Sigh.

>>Roberto Beignini winning Best Actor over the likes of Ian McKellen in "Gods and Monsters" and Nick Nolte in "Affliction"<<

Others have brought this award up re Ian McKellen but you're the first to remember Nick Nolte's knock-out performance in "Affliction." IIRC, James Coburn won Best Supporting Actor--well deserved--but Nolte was phenomenal. Would have had a tough time choosing between McKellan and Nolte--apples and oranges roles--but Roberto Benigni? Yep, the Academy rewarded the Disney version of an Italian Jew in fascist Italy and the Disney Holocaust.

And not only Ally Sheedy in "High Art" for Best Actress but also Patricia Clarkson for Best Supporting. Virtually disappeared into her supporting role as the washed up former Fassbinder "star" junkie and Lucy's lover cum heroin buddy. Just the kind of movie the Academy loves--NOT, lol.

"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" losing to "Gladiator"--Ptooey!

All the brouhaha over "Moulin Rouge," especially Nicole Kidman--Ptooey!

Ang Lee for all the times he and his films such as "The Ice Storm" and "The Wedding Banquet" have been overlooked--Ptooey!

Great post, VGT.


Jenny12 and Toni,
Yes, yes, yes. In some poll on an online film site I forget, "Titanic" was voted Worst Best Picture. And to win over the sublime "LA Confidential"--I say again, Ptooey!


Jenny12,
"The English Patient" over "Fargo." Oh, man, I would have agreed with this in a nanosecond until about two years ago. I ADORE "Fargo."own the DVD, have lovingly watched it countless times. But the more I see "The English Patient," the more I admire it. However, you are correct--still classic and relatively safe over groundbreaking. I think "English Patient" got a lot of votes for the mere fact that they were able to adapt that book. At least the Academy had the sense to recognize Frances McDormand. But of course they didn't have the same sense about Bill Macy. Argh.


Joe,
Sorry I missed your correction post. From the times of your post and mine, I would have been writing mine while you were posting yours. One of the disadvantages of not being able to remember where the hell I'd seen a link explaining why the Palance story was a false rumor. You know, short term memory loss. I think I have it too, but I can't remember;)
Rgirl
 
Last edited:

Seonaid920

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
I thought the nominations for Ethan Hawke and Denzel Washington for Training Day were a joke -- and that Denzel won was even a bigger one. It was a typical good cop/ bad cop movie -with one-note characters.

Charlize Theron robbed Naomi Watts last night. Her role was mostly won by the makeup artists and gaining weight.

LOTR's -- sorry but it wasn't THAT good. Entertaining enough, but one of the best movies ever? maybe for 13 year olds.

Lost in Translation - Bill Murray should have won, Scarlett should have been nominated.

Sophia Coppola - should have won best director
Peter Jackson - got the sentimental vote

Diane Keaton? Not a difficult role.

In the past -- Shakespeare in Love, totally overrated. Gwyneth?! she has lots of friends in hollywood to vote for her.

Mira Sorvino -- that movie and performance were nothing short of horrific

Nicole Kidman - totally overrated as an actress and her total lack of a southern accent in Cold Mountain (unless she was saying 'oh dear' or 'oh my') is evidence of that. She won an oscar for The Hours because of a fake nose. Julianne Moore, Renee and Diane Lane were far better.
 
Last edited:

Johar

Medalist
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
I'm 35 and happen to find LOTR entertaining, more so than any other film in years. Jackson deserved it--he was in charge of making three films at once and overseeing thousands of crew, actors, makeup, etc. I doubt few other directors could've handled that for 16 months.

Saving Private Ryan losing to Shakespheare In Love. To me it was a travesty.
 

guinevere

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Helen Hunt and Jack Nicholson winning for "As Good As It Gets". I don't care who they were up against - that was a terrible, sappy television movie that somehow made it on to the big screen. But it was a "prestige" film, much like "Cold Mountain" was this year - lots of big name talent involved, so it was given credit it didn't deserve. Thankfully, "Cold Mountain" did not fare as well this year at the Oscars!

ITA about Ally Sheedy and Patricia Clarkson in "High Art" - GREAT movie (except for the last 5 minutes), great acting. That was the first time I noticed Clarkson.

Sir Ian McKellen was definitely robbed for "Gods and Monsters"!

Michael Caine in "Cider House Rules" over both Jude Law in "Talented Mr Ripley" and Haley Joel Osment in "Sixth Sense". Snore. He did make a great acceptance speech, however.

guinevere
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Rgirl...I love all of your ptooeys!!! It's always a good thing to find good bargains, especially if the shipping and handling cost more than what you payed for the DVD itself.

How could I forget Patricia Clarkson in High Art? It seems Clarkson always gets the cold shoulder from the Academy...first for High Art, then for Far From Heaven. I wonder if Clarkson's persistence that she be considered a Lead actress for "The Station Agent" cost her the Oscar because many people believe she was much better in "Station Agent" than in "Pieces of April".
She might have been smart to do that though because "Station AGent" and "Pieces of April" might have split the vote and cost her a nomination for Supporting Actress.
Mark my words, Clarkson will get an Oscar sooner or later!

OT, but Clarkson actually is from the same part of New Orleans that I am from too. A movie theather in NEw Orleans showed "Pieces of April" for free during the week before the Oscars to celebrate the hometown girl getting her nomination. Anything to give Clarkson and that movie more recognition is fine by me.


I know you might lose some love for me Rgirl, but I really thought "Shakespeare in Love" was actually the best movie out of the nominees for Best Picture that year. The nominees were:

Elizabeth
Life is Beautiful
Saving Private Ryan
Shakespeare in Love
The Thin Red Line

I really think Shakespeare in Love had the best screenplay out of the five, and best acting overall. Elizabeth was good, but a bit overdramatic and soap opera like at times. Life is Beautiful was garbage. Saving Private Ryan peaked in the first 20 minutes then became the usual buddy war movie that had stereotypical soldiers playing into their roles. The Thin Red Line was great, but dragged in places.

My opinion is really unusual about "Shakespeare" is really unusual I know, but I really thought that movie was really well-written and honestly witty. Plus, I'm biased toward ensemble acting pieces (a la Gosford Park).

Even though I bad mouth Miramax sometimes, I do applaud it for doing one thing. In 2001, they got a movie that cost less than $500,000 to make and was able to have it get nominated for 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Despite all bad things Miramax does, this type of behavior makes me respect them again. That movie by the way was "In the Bedroom", one of the best movies ever.
 

Michibanana

Rinkside
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
It's funny, though. Even though Anna Paquin was the child star, it's Winona Ryder who ended up leading a life of crime, so to speak.

LOLOL :laugh: ! Except for Winona Ryder was somewhat of a child star herself...she started in her early teens, IIRC. And ITA with whoever said that they could see Winona winning for Little Women. Admittedly, I haven't seen Jessica Lange's winning performance from Scent of a Woman. But Winona's performance in Little Women is one of the most real, subtle, multilayered, fully realized performances I've seen and one of my favorites of all time. Every time I watch it, I find something new and exciting about it, and I've probably seen it upwards of ten times or more. One of my biggest beefs about the Oscars is that, although they are voted on by supposed industry "experts," they often seem to favor style over substance, especially in the acting categories. I'm a student of acting/theater myself, and quite honestly, I find that the hysterical, in-your-face, let go type of performances that Oscar often awards are, especially for a good actor, some of the easiest to give. The layered, multifaceted performances a la Winona Ryder in Little Women are much more difficult. And by now it's an acting cliche that comedy is the most difficult to do, but Oscar never seems to realize that.

But seriously, I am still fuming that Sean Astin was not nominated for a supporting actor spot

ITA, big time! I knew it wasn't going to happen when he didn't get nominated for any of the other major awards, but I felt like he was totally robbed of a nomination. I understand that, in a movie that was truly an ensemble acting effort, in which the performances were uniformly strong, it's difficult to single actors out, but I though Astin gave the performance of the movie and of his career. I was really disappointed that nobody gave him the recognition he deserved. I would have liked to see New Line push more for their actors. They did after Fellowship, and it worked - Ian McKellin came away with a nomination. But I didn't really hear them campaigning at all seriously for their actors this year, and I think it was a shame.


Ang Lee not getting nominated for Best Director for "Sense and Sensibility"

I totally agree! Sense and Sensibility is a masterpiece of directing! No smoke and mirrors, no emotion-manipulating music, just real, honest, creative directing and shooting.

Charlize Theron robbed Naomi Watts last night. Her role was mostly won by the makeup artists and gaining weight.

Okay, I admit that I haven't seen either movie, but from what I've heard - from several people I really respect who have seen the movie - I disagree with this statement. Rodger Ebert called this one of the greatest performances in history. He's not the expert I'm talking about. My theater teacher, who is probably the person I most respect in the world of theater and who has impressive credentials and expertise, saw this movie and was blown away by Charlize's performance. He wasn't familiar with her at all as an actress. He had never seen any of her other movies and doesn't even know what she looks like in real life. But he said that her performance was incredible. He said that she embodied the character - and that the place you could see the character the most was in her eyes.

Peter Jackson - got the sentimental vote

No surprise - I disagree with this, too. I don't think any of the LOTR movies were flawless, but Peter Jackson's achievement in directing was unprecedented. No one has ever taken on a project this big, and the problems that he, as a director, had to solve were incredible. I know some people felt like these movies were all about special effects, but I personally think that's just a matter of opinion. To me, the thing that stood out the most about these films was the humanity of them, especially the third film. In ROTK, I was so caught up in the human element of the story, the odds that the characters were facing, the courage and sacrifice they had to demonstrate. I could really identify with it. It's hard for me to put into words why exactly I feel Jackson was deserving of this award, but I really believe that he is an amazing director and fully deserving of his Oscar. I think it would have been a travesty if he had come away without one. On the other hand, I think it's really hard to compare directing a movie like ROTK to a movie like Lost in Translation. They are completely different movies; the demands and challenges of the director are completely different. It's like (to use a sad, broken cliche) comparing apples and oranges.
 

Seonaid920

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
"I think it would have been a travesty if [peter jackson] had come away without [an oscar]"

Absolutely, me too, even though I would have voted for Sophia, I would have felt horrible for Peter Jackson if he hadn't won and I think everyone felt that way - that's what I mean by a sentimental vote. I know he did a tremendous job on the films but personally for me it wasn't an "oscar worthy" movie, but that is personal taste. It's the type of movie my brother in his mid thirties who'll never grow up (still a big video game/comic book fan) thinks is the best movie ever made (he was also a star was fanatic). I thought the first movie was the best of the 3. The latest installment had me checking my watch every 20 minutes. All of this years 'best movies' as a whole left me a bit dissatisfied but I found the subtleness of Lost in Translation refreshing.

I recommend seeing 21 grams. Monster was not very moving. I saw all these articles about the movie making the serial killer a sympathetic figure but I didn't feel sorry for her or cry once through the movie, perhaps its was the performance, or lack thereof in my opinion of Charlize that did that for me. Charlize's peformance was a lot of mimicking of the serial killer's habits, she wore false teeth, had her hair and skin messed up and eyebrows plucked so that she would look just like the serial killer, but the character evoked no emotion out of me at all, whereas Naomi Watt's character, also imperfect, did. While watching Monster I kept thinking of her as Charlize playing dress up, so I never really bought her as the serial killer.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
VIETgrlTerifa,
I wouldn't love you one bit less for liking "Shakespeare in Love" over any of the other Best Picture nominated films that year. True, I thought Blanchett's performance in "Elizabeth" was far superior to Paltrow's in "SIL," but for me, none of the films nominated in '98 were Oscar worthy. Can't think of any nonnominated movies that year that grabbed me, but after 35 years of serious movie-watching, I definitely depend on lists.

I had great hopes for the return of Terence Malick, but ITA that "The Thin Red Line" had too many places that dragged. Plus the film never caught on with audiences, which were suckered in by Spielberg cheese yet again. I'll give SS props for the first 20 minutes, but after I'd seen the beginning once--eh.


Michibanana,
Jessica Lange wasn't in "Scent of a Woman." Are you thinking of the Oscar she won for "Blue Sky"?


Re Oscar's 2004
Peter Jackson won Best Director for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, not for "Return of the King" alone. I know, ROTK is what he was nominated for, but that's only because Jackson is the first person in Oscar history to have each part of the film trilogy he directed nominated for Best Picture and to be nominated himself for Best Director for LOTR parts 1 and 3. The Academy had no way to award Jackson a Best Director Oscar for LOTR triology as a whole, so they gave it to him for the final installment.

We've seen several trilogies in the last few years and they all tanked after the impact of the first film. "The Matrix" is the worst example--great start, abominable finish. We've also seen MANY films go ga-ga with CGI. For me, all the CGI-dependent films have been real yawners, except for LOTR. I was never a Tolkien fan nor a fan of knights, ladies, and elves-inspired fantasy. But what Jackson did with LOTR was make sure that the heart of the film was more impressive than the special effects.

Although I very much understand that it is just as difficult to direct an intimate drama, such as the great "In the Bedroom" by Todd Field--or "Lost in Translation" or "Mystic River"--as it is to direct an epic with 25,000 people. But Jackson directed the equivalent of nearly a nine-hour epic that maintained the emotional relationships among the characters. This year had several exceptionally deserving films and performances in the top categories, one of the richest years I've seen in a while. But it just so happened that this was LOTR's last year and it had to be rewarded. The Academy was blinded by James Cameron's use of CGI in the god-awful "Titanic"--worst Best Picture ever, IMO--but with LOTR, the Academy got it right.

BTW, the 76th AA's may have been predictable, but they got the winners right--Errol Morris for Best Documentary FINALLY (that alone blesses the Academy this year)--and everybody looked damn gorgeous. I mean, presenters such as Catherine Zeta-Jones and Angelina Jolie--my gawd! Renee Zellweger doing the classic Hollywood sideways gown walk down the stairs. Johnny Depp in a designer tux. Don't get me wrong, I love his vintage look, but when you're a nominee, go with the classic look. And how "awwwwww" was he with Keisha Castle-Hughes? I think the thing that made the show drag was not the predictability of the winners or the LOTR sweep, but the fact that Billy Crystal's time as host has past. Time to get somebody edgier. Robin Williams. Chris Rock. For a funny movie awards show, watch the Independent Spirit Awards. The AA's job is glamour and this year the Academy did a good job.
Rgirl
 

Olenska

Rinkside
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I agree with the Forrest Gump vs. Pulp Fiction argument.

As for my personal wuzrobbed, I can only think of one for now:
Tommy Lee Jones winning over Ralph Fiennes in 1994. (Jones for The Fugitive and Ralph for Schindler's List).

Also, I think Bill Murray should have won this year.

I also think that Lost in Translation should have won best movie. And LOTR sweep all the others (director, editing, sound, etc.), which it did, lol.

ETA: and if Tom Cruise ever wins an Oscar, kill me, please.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Forgot to add re somebody's comment that Denzel Washington should not have been nominated for "Training Day." For the performance itself, I agree, but for all the times Washington was robbed, it was a good enough performance to nominate so he could win a competitive Oscar. It was like Paul Newman winning for his relatively mediocre (for Newman) "Color of Money" raather than "Hud," "Cool Hand Luke," or especially "The Verdict."


Olenska,
Have you seen Tom Cruise in "Magnolia"? He didn't win that year but it was certainly an Oscar worthy performance. Cruise has more than enough money and big blockbusters now, thus I'd like to see him take some Independent chances like he did in "Magnolia." He's got the chops, he just keeps choosing parts and/or directors that allow Tom to keep doing the same role in different costumes. I also thought he was great in "Jerry Maguire," which is another thing I'd like to see him do more of--comedy.


One last thing to VIETgrlTerifa: I'll mark your words too that Patricia Clarkson will win an Oscar. Hopefully soon.
Rgirl
 

show 42

Arm Chair Skate Fan
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Well move over, Johar, I'm with you.....I'm a lot older than 35, and I loved LOTR................42
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
show 42 said:
Well move over, Johar, I'm with you.....I'm a lot older than 35, and I loved LOTR................42
Scoot over Show and Johar to make room for me:) As I said before, I was never into Tolkien or the whole genre of wizards, dragons, elves, etc. in books or film. And while I didn't love LOTR the way I love films such as "To Kill a Mockingbird," "The Apartment," "Raging Bull," "Some Like it Hot," "Citizen Kane," "In the Bedroom," "The Thin Blue Line," "Gates of Heaven," "Lord of the Flies" (1963), "Jules and Jim," "Pauline at the Beach," and other films on my "to die for" list, IMO the LOTR trilogy transcended its own genre and became "genreless" in that it is not only a classic, but also timeless. I'd love to watch the full trilogy in a theater with a great screen, print, and sound system--with food and powder room breaks, natch--but I would want to do so sitting in a La-Z-Boy. Ya gotta admit, LOTR is tough on the back and butt:eek: It's worthi it, I just would enjoy it more in a nice comfy recliner.:)
Rgirl
 
Last edited:

show 42

Arm Chair Skate Fan
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I'd love to watch the full trilogy in a theater with a great screen, print, and sound system--with food and powder room breaks, natch--but I would want to do so sitting in a La-Z-Boy. Ya gotta admit, LOTR is tough on the back and butt It's worthi it, I just would enjoy it more in a nice comfy recliner.

So true, Rgirl, which is what I intend to do when it comes out on DVD.........spend one whole day watching all three installments................now that's what I call a "recliner potato" .
:) 42
 

mpal2

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
I've already got the extended ROTK ordered. I know the exact date I will be picking it up and I've already got the couch potato party planned. I keep threatening to make people watch all the movies in row and then go back through for the commentaries. :laugh:
 

Ladskater

~ Figure Skating Is My Passion ~
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
skatepixie:

Ghandi boring? one of the best performances of all time from Ben Kingsley! You must be kidding. The historical siginificance of the character alone is larger than life. Now 2001 a Space Odessy that was a snoozer....zzzzz.....

No wonder Oliver won.
 

show 42

Arm Chair Skate Fan
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Ahhh mpal.........yet another kindred spirit......love it, love it.....42
 

soogar

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
I think that the person who was robbed the most was Bjork. I loved her in that Lars von Trier movie (the name escapes me) where she played the blind factory worker and she wasn't even nominated in the best actress category. She was brilliant in that flick.

The Academy totally got it wrong with Halle Berry b/c she was horrible in Monster's Ball except for the last scene when she realizes Billy Bob Thornton's character's participation in her husband's death and you can see the realization and resignation in her eyes as she's eating the ice cream (that was pretty good acting) but not enough to win an Oscar.

As for Charlize, I haven't seen her movie but looking at the clips on TV, it doesn't strike me anything spectacular.

Nicole Kidman was horrible as Virginia Woolf but she was terrific in The Others and she should have been nominated for that one.

Haley Joel Osment should have won for the 6th Sense. He's a terrific actor however I have the feeling he won't be doing too many films now that he's older and is experiencing a very awkward adolescence.
 

BronzeisGolden

Medalist
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Ladskater,

I completely agree about "Ghandi"! The book that the movie was based on was terrific and I felt they did a wonderful job of bringing it to life. Certainly, everyone is different, but I thought there were so many beautiful things about "Ghandi" the movie. Ben Kingsley made one of those epic transformations that Oscar just loves, but I happen to feel it is one of the best (though I haven't seen "Monster" yet). I didn't recognize him. He looked completely different, but more than that he seemed to fully embody his character and gave a more than convincing performance.

Soogar,

Bjork was wonderful in "Dancer in the Dark" (I think that is the title). Perhaps she was and is just too far from the mainstream for the Academy. I happen to think she is extremely talented and would love to see her in more movies.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
soogar said:
I think that the person who was robbed the most was Bjork. I loved her in that Lars von Trier movie (the name escapes me) where she played the blind factory worker and she wasn't even nominated in the best actress category. She was brilliant in that flick.
"Dancer in the Dark" and ITA. Bjork wuz robbed, as was von Triers for directing. I love this movie, even though I think von Triers should have stuck to his own script and had a black woman play the part that Catherine Deneuve played, except it's typical "Dogma '98" to do that. I mean, it is pretty hilarious to see guys lusting after Bjork while completely ignoring Deneuve. I've always wanted to see a musical done that way--like people in the 7-11 dancing and singing as if it were just part of everyday life. Some people made such a big deal about how innovative "Chicago" was because the musical numbers were inside Roxie's head. Dennis Potter did that way back in "Pennies from Heaven," which, BTW, if anybody adores Christopher Walken's dancing, the only place its greatness is captured on film other than the "Weapon of Choice" video is in the 1980 version of "Pennies from Heaven" with Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters, which the critics slammed. It's one of my favorite movies. And I bet some musical before that at least alluded to musical numbers as happening inside the main character's head. "Dancer in the Dark" is almost like a hyperealistic operetta. Bjork is amazing in it, but I understand she was a raging b***h to work with. Ah, these artists.


VIETgrlTerifa--
I love "The Lion in Winter." Of the five nominees for Best Picture in 1968, that would be my choice too, since "2001" wasn't even nominated for BP, which, love it or hate it, is a travesty. The five movies nominted were: "Oliver," "Funny Girl!" "Romeo and Juliet," The Lion in Winter," and "Rachel, Rachel." "Lion" definitely had the best acting of all the films, IMO; in fact some of the best acting ever in a film before or since. Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole duking it out for power at the height of their powers as actors is a wonder to behold, as well as watching a nascent Anthony Hopkins.

Kubrick was nominated for Best Director, and "2001" received three other nominations, but it only won for Best Visual Effects. I would have nominated Douglas Rain, who did the voice of HAL, for a Best Supporting Actor if not Best Actor since I think HAL has the most lines in the film--and certainly the greatest emotional range. I would put a "LOL" there, but it's true. When I saw "2001" in 1970 at age 14, even then I knew I was watching something extraordinary. I never tire of watching it.

Of the '68 BP nominees, I would put them in this order (first to last):
"The Lion in Winter"
"Funny Girl!"
"Romeo and Juliet"
"Rachel, Rachel"
"Oliver!"
And of those, only "Rachel, Rachel" (adapted from the novel) isn't a play put on film. I have nothing against plays put on film; I think the BP nominees for '68 show how much turmoil the country was in. Institutions like the Academy became more conservative as the country went nuts all around them. Nope, the Academy wasn't going to nominate a movie like "2001" for much in those times. It was too much like real life in that it was so surreal.
Rgirl
 
Top