web counter
 

What Do I Do With All This Hate?

By Brian Prisco | Posted Under Miscellaneous | Comments (41)

oscardead.jpg

I woke up at 5:30 AM and sat on my couch with a great big bottle of Haterade, ready to unleash my venom on the Oscar nominations. I figured they’d fuck up, and blow it, like they always do, snub great performances, make me furious.

But, I just…I got nothing.

Yes, I think it’s completely fucktarded that they opted to make Toy Story 3 an “adapted” screenplay and so it took a place that the more deserving Rabbit Hole should have occupied. That’s a grievous oversight on the part of the voters.

And I don’t understand why there were only four best song nominations. I actually looked it up on the Academy rules and eligibility and the nomination voting process makes about as much logical sense as choosing with chicken bingo. Decapitate a chicken and whatever square it collapses in, dat’s who win! Whatever. I’m just going to pencil in John Legend’s song in the fifth spot in my heart.

I don’t personally think The Kids Are All Right should have gotten as many nominations as it did. I’m kind of surprised Rabbit Hole didn’t get more. And I’m disappointed that Blue Valentine got less love than it deserved. But that’s not too surprising. The Academy always roughs up the little dogs.

But there were so many nice surprises. Jacki Weaver made it for her amazing performance in Animal Kingdom. Winter’s Bone got much deserved love, especially for John Hawkes in the supporting nomination. The King’s Speech really did win over audiences, and perhaps it will triumph over The Social Network goliath that seemed to sweep all the critic’s lists.

I guess I will have to bottle up my outrage for the night of the telecast, when Academy voters who long ago should have died will do their best to fuck everything up for the rest of us. I know it’s suddenly vogue to Humbert any fan of NatPo, but will you really be thrilled if Annette Benning wins? Will gay marriage spontaneously become legal? And, I loved Jeff Bridges’ performance in True Grit, but he doesn’t belong there. And if anyone else beats Colin Firth for best actor, I’m personally going to beat them. I’m in the city, with traffic I can be there in an hour.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← The Cinema Hold-Up | I Guess Wanting Your Money Back After Seeing the Latest Kate Hudson Suckfest Isn't Just an American Thing | The Cinema Hold-Up | I Guess Wanting Your Money Back After Seeing the Latest Kate Hudson Suckfest Isn't Just an American Thing →









Comments

Notwithstanding Colin Firth's performance in The Kings Speech (which was excellent, although for my money not as good as last year's A Single Man), there's a great piece by Christopher Hitchens in Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2282194/pagenum/all
on how incredibly white-washed the whole film is with regard to the royals and their WWII positions.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 25, 2011 12:06 PM

Sorry, I'm so broke, I can't even afford a good bottle of haterade.

Guess I'll just has to settle for my glass of "meh" and be done with it

Posted by: Uncle JR at January 25, 2011 12:07 PM

Who's got any hate for this year's nominations? Basically everyone that was going to be nominated got nominated. The thing will run for 5 hours. No one will give a crap about the technical awards, except for total Oscar wins counters. The rich and pretty will party it up afterwards. In the morning, we'll get those interviews with stars, half-hungover and tired. A story or two might pop up of cattiness by a big ego star.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. See you in 2012.

Posted by: Fredo at January 25, 2011 12:08 PM

I made the same point on the previous Oscar post. I don't see anything there to hate. All the nominated films and performances were pretty good (I've not seen them all, but I am at least looking forward to them).

Why they don't have five songs and five animated features I'll never know. I guess stupidity at the Academy is alive and well. At least they were handed a decent slate of quality films this year so that even they couldn't fuck it up.

Posted by: Yossarian at January 25, 2011 12:26 PM

Didn't catch the movie, but was Renner that good in The Town? Guess I didn't see that one coming.

Posted by: D-Day at January 25, 2011 12:27 PM

I have to ask, what does it mean to Humbert someone, and why is it vogue to do it to fans of Natalie Portman? I don't know if I want to be Humberted...

Posted by: Torint at January 25, 2011 12:30 PM

@Torint

I assumed it was a Lolita reference implying that ardent supporters of Natalie Portman have a thing for sexualized young girls, either because of her role in the Professional when she was thirteen or because she still has the body of a thirteen year old now.

Posted by: Yossarian at January 25, 2011 12:37 PM

Tron: Legacy was robbed for best score and best visual effects. Robbed, I tell you!

Posted by: damiella at January 25, 2011 12:40 PM

From what in Sam's Hill was Toy Story 3 adapted? The first two films in the series?
'thuuuh Fuck?

Posted by: Rykker at January 25, 2011 12:41 PM

I can't compare him to the others as I haven't seen them all, but Renner was FANTASTIC in the Town. I was a bit worried since he didn't strike me, physically, as matching Jem from the Chuck Hogan novel, but he was spot on as the loose cannon of the group.

Discounting Affleck in front of the camera, and Blake Lively's meager screen time, Renner got to showboat a little with the likes of Jon Hamm and Pete Postelthwaite, and he looked damn good doing his thing.

Also, I miss Pete.

Posted by: Markus at January 25, 2011 12:57 PM

I'm just pissed I wasn't nominated. AGAIN.

WHAT'S IT GONNA TAKE, ACADEMY?!

Posted by: Anna von Beav at January 25, 2011 1:05 PM

I assumed it was a Lolita reference implying that ardent supporters of Natalie Portman have a thing for sexualized young girls, either because of her role in the Professional when she was thirteen or because she still has the body of a thirteen year old now.

Dude, no way. Have you seen that girls ass in the movie Closer and the new one with James Franco? She's petite, and had to lose a ton of weight for this part. I'm glad she is not of the get tons of work done and topple over to make it in Hollywood. The girl has been bald and looked amazing.

Posted by: daria at January 25, 2011 1:15 PM

I'm a bit out of the downtown core, along the Lakeshore.

Posted by: JaneSpotting at January 25, 2011 1:16 PM

While Firth was great and deserving, James Franco should win Best Actor. He was phenomenal in a much harder role, IMO.

Posted by: Damnyankees at January 25, 2011 1:20 PM

@PaddyDog, I'm not sure you can use the qualifier "incredibly" before the white-washed there. Churchill had all of five minutes screen time and I think it was pretty clear that Edward, at least, was not anti-Nazi. As for the rest regarding George VI, I don't think it's ridiculously off there either.

If it's okay for The Social Network to fudge with the truth for a better story, why not The King's Speech? It's not like any of them were portrayed as singlehandedly fending off the Nazi threat. Besides, they found an actress who looked amazingly like Wallis Simpson, which was totally awesome and the relationship dynamics were way more important (for the movie) than the politics were.

Posted by: leuce7 at January 25, 2011 1:20 PM

@Rykker: Maybe it was adapted from Toy Story On Ice

Posted by: bostonadrianne at January 25, 2011 1:44 PM

Aaron Eckhart or Ryan Gosling not getting nominated for best actor and Jeff Bridges being in there stead is ridiculous!!!!!!!

Totally agree with all your Rabbit Hole comments, it's getting nothing and it was so great.

Posted by: Theseus at January 25, 2011 1:56 PM

I really don´t understand Javier Bardems nomination, has Julia Roberts really that much power? If anybody steals away Colin Firths Oscar I will go crazy,too.. aand I would love to see Michelle Williams to get that Oscar in front of Natalie Portmans b itchface!!

Posted by: Jolene at January 25, 2011 1:58 PM

Can I just say I'm deeply disappointed that they didn't nominate Cher for best song. I thought for sure we'd get to see her sashay around stage with an insanely out of place number. The Academy has no sense of theatricality.

Posted by: valerie at January 25, 2011 2:03 PM

Well leuce7:

There is to me a huge difference between being "not anti-Nazi" and being someone who embraced the entire Nazi philosophy and even angled to be replaced as King if the Germans took Britain.

I understand the movies frequently play with the truth for more drama. I'm just not convinced that the outbreak of WWII was in need of additional drama especially in the interests of building up a story that was not that pivotal historically anyway.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 25, 2011 2:07 PM

@yossarian,

Bam! or score! or whatever is current for 'you hit the nail on the head'

Posted by: idleprimate at January 25, 2011 2:11 PM

No love for Inception. Really? None?

Posted by: Cliff torres at January 25, 2011 2:12 PM

Thrilled for Michelle Williams, sad for Andrew Garfield.

But WTF at Mark Ruffalo getting a nomination for The Kids are Allright?! All he did was mumble his way through the movie, for crying out loud.

But I'll probably never be as pissed as I was when a) Reese Witherspoon got an Oscar instead of Felicity Huffman and b) Brokeback Mountain didn't get best picture.

Posted by: Vanessa at January 25, 2011 2:15 PM

i'm not a big oscar follower, but I thought that the noms did a good job of highlighting really good movies/directors/actors who were widely available to see last year.

AND SYLVAIN CHOMET GOT A NOD!! they passed on easy big release films, to at least give a nod, to a visionary film maker.

after that, it's all warmth for the oscars this year. they could give eddie murphy an oscar and I'd still be giddy.

Posted by: idleprimate at January 25, 2011 2:20 PM

The Kids Are All Right was enjoyable enough for a pile of cliches, but hardly worthy of this buzz.

Posted by: ironjohn at January 25, 2011 2:48 PM

Vanessa:

You took the words right out of my mouth on Ruffalo (see other Oscar thread).

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 25, 2011 2:58 PM

I’m sad, is this the best that Hollywood has to offer? Last night I watched “Network” for the hundredth time on netflix and again I was blown away by the acting the script and the emotion that it had to offer. I remember as a kid my father had me read to him from the t.v. guide what was coming on t.v. that night. I liked doing it, I guess it was his way of bonding. I can remember sitting by my old man watching "Serpico," "Prince of the City," or whatever James Bond movie that was on t.v. that Sunday night. Again, I’m sad, Hollywood has lost it’s ability to make movies.

Posted by: Pookie at January 25, 2011 3:16 PM

Hearing that John Hawkes was nominated made my day...Lost's Lennon is getting some love. And though I know the popular choice is Bale for The Fighter I can't help but hope that Teardrop beats his ass.

Also, how is it fair that Toy Story 3 is nominated for Best Picture and Best Animated Feature? I call bullshit on that.

And yes, for me, the greatest fist-shaking moment was when I found out that Tron got dick all for visual effects and score. Not only did I predict that it would be nominated for visuals but I also though, hands down, it would win.

Posted by: citizen_cris at January 25, 2011 3:42 PM

Ok, whoever thought that Javier Bardem's oscar nomination came from Eat Pray Love made me laugh hysterically. It's for Biutiful!!

Posted by: Theseus at January 25, 2011 3:53 PM

oh pookie, you can read tv guide to us. and by next year, a lot of the great movies on the silver sceen this year will be on tv, and you will see hollywood redeemed.

until then, i have a vhs of those Michael Caine satires on Bond.

Posted by: idleprimate at January 25, 2011 3:59 PM

I just hope, please, please, please, that they don't have the prior years nominees presenting this years nominees like they started doing two years ago. Please just stick with a clip from the movie PLEASE!

The Academy awards is the only award show I watch please don't ruin it for me PLEEEEEEASE!

Posted by: John W at January 25, 2011 4:03 PM

"If it's okay for The Social Network to fudge with the truth for a better story, why not The King's Speech?"

Well, the story behind the Social Network is a contested one - that's pretty much the central point of the movie. Also, I'd wager it's a lot more irresponsible to distort a public figure's position in WWI than to tinker with the story behind a major cultural/entrepreneurial feat.

Posted by: samantha t at January 25, 2011 5:07 PM

I don't think anyone's position on Germany in The King's Speech was whitewashed or distorted so much as minimized or just not mentioned. IMHO getting too much into the politics of the abdication would have distracted from the story the writer wanted to tell. I would love to see a movie about the whole Edward VIII kerfuffle though, if anyone wants to recommend one.

And the movie did mention Wallis Simpson's dalliance with a Nazi officer. I couldn't figure out who the actress was while watching the movie; turns out she plays the best friend on Nurse Jackie.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at January 25, 2011 8:34 PM

Can I just say I'm deeply disappointed that they didn't nominate Cher for best song. I thought for sure we'd get to see her sashay around stage with an insanely out of place number. The Academy has no sense of theatricality.

Posted by: valerie at January 25, 2011 2:03 PM

Well, she's been nominated for a Razzie for that disgrace, so maybe we'll be super lucky and she'll win and accept in person.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at January 25, 2011 11:09 PM

The nominations are pretty much how they should be. My only real qualm is with the foreign films. Why Elite Squad 2 was not submitted by Brazil I do not know. It was IMO the best film of the year. And another movie I liked, Argentine film Carancho was submitted but did not get a nomination. But I'm not sure how the competition stacks up in that category because I havent see the other nominees.

Posted by: Muteki at January 26, 2011 6:49 AM

@ Rykker

Don't hold me to it, but I'm pretty sure that any sequel (...or three-quel as the case may be) is automatically considered an 'adapted screenplay'. I suppose because the material, though original, is based on established characters, settings, etc.

Posted by: canaux at January 26, 2011 7:32 AM

I haven't seen it yet, but I kind of want Nicole Kidman to win. She's had a rough few years pubicly, she produced the film herself and it would be a major fuck you to Tom Cruise.

I hope Gwyneth Paltrow performs her COUNTRY
STRONG song at the Oscars. But only if it ends like it did in the movie.

Posted by: Andrew at January 26, 2011 7:52 AM


very pleased that " winter's bone " was not forgotten. granik
deserved a nom for best director but 3 of 4 isn't bad hawkes
was phenomenal in what was a true supporting role but is
forced to compete against bale and rush who did the heavy
lifting in their films.
brian's take was right on. " rabbit hole " belongs on the list and
gosling's omission while bridges gets another nomination as a boozy westerner is disappointing.
finally, eisenberg is being overlooked even though he was perfect in a more difficult role than firth's. colin firth is a world
class actor but once he developed the stammer, the role in
" king's speech " became one dimensional... not his fault and he
performed that dimension as well as anyone could have but
eisenberg faced a more challenging and nuanced role and
nailed it.
overall, the nominations were ok.

Posted by: snake at January 26, 2011 9:35 AM

I was very surprised that Ryan Gosling didn't get a nod. I think he was exceptional in there. :( There was no Blue Valentine love.

Posted by: tallulahc at January 26, 2011 11:31 AM

I was so glad when I saw John Hawkes nomination, I actually stopped reading the rest of the nominees list. I was happy enough with that.

Posted by: King Mob at January 27, 2011 5:11 AM

OMG, I've been searching for this thru so much junk, thank you!! amazing, you are amazing!! :)

Posted by: Terrence Sterman at January 27, 2011 1:56 PM