Pajiba

No Best Director?

Hows aboot Senor Spielbergo for Schindler's List? (More a case of me trying to find a year when the award wasn't in dispute than anything else.) Any others? Ang Lee maybe?

Also I feel the need to say this; I saw "Gangs of New York" again last night. That movie was f'in terrible. Save D-Day Lewis.

It's too early to tell about No Country, I think. I don't know that it will become an enduring classic. Ask yourself if you feel like watching it again today. Be honest.

Platoon is the only one I'll disagree with. Stone is a hack who has only retreated to movies appropriate to his skill level a handful of times (Any Given Sunday being a prime example). He's like the opposite of the discussion we were having about comedians. When he crawls inside his own asshole and tries to be serious and artistic he's just fucking insufferable. There are so many better war movies, and while it may well have been better than most of the other movies nominated (though A Room with a View probably has a strong case), it was by no means the best movie made in 1986.
Other movies eligible that year:
The Color of Money
Aliens
Hoosiers
Blue Velvet
Stand by Me
The Fly

Otherwise a very strong list. I would have to think hard to come up with something more deserving.

Honestly, I cannot even bear the thought of having to ever sit through an entire Oscar show. It sickens me, that these people find it necessary to heap self-congratulatoried praise on eachother... With their fake smiles, eager clapping, crocodile happy-tears, the pomp and circumstance of an awards show that really doesn't matter in the world. Especially the world right now.....

Yeah, I like movies. I watch movies. I go to the movies. I hate Nicholas Cage and I love Javier Bardem. (Who am I kidding, I would totally fuck Javier Bardem) But does anyone else agree?? This entitlement to back-patting to the nth degree... Doesn't it make you so disgusted that you wanna punch fuzzy bunnies or something??? Wearing designer gowns worth more than my fucking car, talking about their art and how much their soul bleeds while performing it. COME ON. Most movies are shit. Most actors and actresses can't act at all.... I don't know.. It all seems just very foolish to me.

And if that doesn't convince you, how about that interview I accidentally saw on some web site with Miley Cyrus and Lisa Rinna... And Miley says she hopes to win an Oscar one day. Because, you know, she has a "projest" coming out April 10th..... In a schadenfrauden kind of way, I would laugh my ass off if she ever did win, only because it would justify my crazy-ass rant here.....

Oh look. It's time for my meds.

I'm willing to expose myself to the wrath of some pajiba-ers. Why is No Country for Old Men a good (much less great) movie? Granted, the acting was good. But I felt like "So what?" after it was over. I couldn't connect with any of the characters and didn't much care what happened to them. I understand the themes: different strands of morality and the "new" kind of crime versus "old school" crime. But in the end after nearly 3 hours I felt "So what?" So honestly, what is so great about this movie?

I've pretty much resigned myself to your LotR hate-on, but what was wrong with Gladiator? Seemed like a pretty solid bit of film-making to me.

Sorry Eep but I disagree with your assessment of Platoon. Whatever else Oliver Stone has done since then, he deserves accolades for Platoon as a classic. If you go back to the time and context when Platoon came out, it was a blockbuster in every sense- casting, shooting, even the script. It's a movie that is so far down into our movie lexicon, particularly war movies and Vietnam, we (you) take it for granted nowadays.

I disagree with number 2, and No Country was a toss-up; I legitimately loved all the best picture nominees in 2007. But really, how can you say The Lord of the Rings isn't a classic? Those movies are going to be around for decades (until they are remade in 2050)! And the only legitimate reason for excluding Heath Ledger from your list is that this was submitted before the Oscars. If not, shame on you. And while I agree that Brokeback Mountain was a better movie, the hate on this site for Crash has never made sense to me.

Now, all that said, they missed the two best movies of 2008 in their Best Picture nominations: The Dark Knight and In Bruges (a film which gets significantly better after multiple viewings). And I'll say it right now, Slumdog didn't deserve it. Neither did Benjamin Button. Neither did Frost/Nixon (though I loved that movie). I didn't see Milk or The Reader, but from what I've heard, they didn't deserve it either. We have to keep in mind that not every year is packed with classics like 2007. Sometimes, the big awards push is filled with good movies that will be forgotten soon. Sometimes, there are long stretches of this phenomenon. If they released a Godfather-level classic every single year, the awards would be much more obvious, and the classic films would be much less interesting over time. We need off years to remind us of the best movies we've ever seen.

Oh, and you forgot to list Matt Damon and Ben Affleck for Original Screenplay for Good Will Hunting.

Jeremy Irons for Reversal of Fortune and Adrian Brody for The Pianist would both have to be on my list. And no way should NCFOM have won against There Will Be Blood. I loved both movies, but the gorgeous vision of TWBB blew me away.

Maybe this is an obvious question, but what determines whether an actor gets a "Best Supporting Actor" or "Best Actor" nomination? It seems to me that Anthony Hopkins should have received a nomination for Supporting Actor for Silence of the Lambs, seeing as how he has limited screen time and only a tenuous connection to the real plot of the movie.

Whereas Javier Bardem and Heath Ledger had much more screen time and were arguably the main characters in their respective films, yet weren't up for Best Actor. Seems fishy to me. Maybe everyone knows why and I'm just stupid.

Well, I am stupid, but that's beside the point.

Snath- You think his connection to the plot was tenuous? I actually felt that his relationship with Starling was what the movie was about and everything else was more or less superficial.

Poor choice of words, I guess. I feel the same as you.

Excuse me?!

Where is Charlize Theron in Monster?

I've got to agree with Eep on Platoon. I loved it the first time I saw it, but I didn't think it held up to a second viewing or much scrutiny. I found it to be a very shallow view of war in general and that war in particular, and very heavy handed in its depiction of good and evil. Despite the presence of a junior Sheen, it was no Apocalypse Now. Or Full Metal Jacket, for that matter.

I wish to comment (albeit late in the game) about awards show hatred.

Ahem: It's a show about honoring great work in an artistic field, as determined by a peer group. Nothing wrong with that at all, especially in a world that insists that every little leaguer get a trophy just for showing up.

Suggesting it isn't the right kind of thing to do when times are tough is puritanical. It is an escapist medium (film) and it's an escapist event. It inspires glamour, hatred, devotion, disgust, respect and condemnation. One individual cannot make a culture, and Hollywood has a far reach for a reason - people choose it. This being a film criticism site, you'd have to expect people would be into it, if only to get critical too.

So, um, whyfore the indignation? It burns me when people shake a finger at others. By all means, ask them what the hell they're thinking - just be prepared to listen to the answer. Pissing and moaning about people trying to enjoy their lives is no way to live.

(Sorry - missed my chance to post the last few days - is the whole planet dying from viral throat infections or what?).

The thing that bugs me the most about the Oscars is that oftentimes people get awards one year for things that weren't so great to make up for not having won for outstanding roles. Russell Crowe comes to mind; he should've won for the Insider, but they couldn't very well not give it to Spacey for American Beauty. Same thing with Kate Winslet this year; she should've won years ago, but they had to make it up to her. Or Judi Dench winning for 6 minutes of Shakespeare in Love when she should've won the year before for Mrs Brown. It sucks. That's why they never seem to get it right.

I agree with pretty much that whole list (SPECIALLY Bardem for No Country), but I'd add:

-Hillary Swank for Boys Don't Cry
-Geoffrey Rush for Shine
-Polanski and Adrien Brody for The Pianist
-Ang Lee for Brokeback Mountain
-Holly Hunter for the Piano

Oh, 25 years, you can still eat shit for Lord of the Rings hate!

I think that what makes No Country for Old Men such an incredibly good movie is that everything in it works so perfectly. It's a marvel of atmosphere and mood, gripping you from the very start, every performance perfectly nuanced, every scene deliberate and beautifully shot. The acting, the setting, the music, the scenary...I remember sitting through that movie gripping the arms of my chair, every now and then just thinking "holy SHIT this is an amazing movie!". Everything works in that movie. Everything. And how many films can have that said about them? I can't find a single thing wrong with it, and I think that that's what makes it so outstanding.

If you don't see that then...ok. But I don't understand it. What the hell is wrong with you?

Getting off my soapbox now.

Ah, of course you would be an LOTR defender George. While I don't necessarily harbor as much hatred for them as Dustin, who tends toward absolutism much of the time, let me say this.

The didn't deserve what they got.

As films, they were good. Not great, not terrible (with the possible exception of the first one), just good. As translations of a much loved world, however, they blew half dead syphilitic lepers. I cannot begin to tell you the rage these pictures engendered in me (especially the entirety of the first film, and the changes to Frodo's relationship with Faramir in the second/third). I gave these films a fair and decent chance...I watched them in the theater. I viewed the interminable director's cuts, in hopes that perhaps somehow, something of value had ended up on the cutting room floor. It didn't.

This is not to say that Jackson got everything wrong. There were moments when I was well and truly swept away by them, and Ian McKellen's performance was utterly fantastic, and worthy of the praise it got. But on the whole, especially looking back, I think they pale in comparison to what many people thought they should have been.

The Lord of the Rings were great pieces of eye candy, but Peter Jackson took an amazing story from one of the best books of all time and he fucked it up. Another writer would've done Tolkien justice.

They're great movies for visuals (special effects, settings, costumes, props, etc), but otherwise they're as empty as Titanic, which was also a very "oooh! pretty!" movie.

No Country For Old Meh

Show, don't tell. And consider putting an ending on your film next time.

Next year's deserving non-winner for Best Picture: Coraline!

Never has one drink felt more like the happiest shroom trip ever...

Someone beat me to it, but I second the mention of Geoffrey Rush for Shine. I saw an interview with David Helfgott and GR absolutely nailed all of his mannerisms and tics.

I'll also add that I thought Tim Robbins was very deserving of his award for Mystic River simply for his body languauge alone. He is a big guy, but he carried himself so small in that movie - like a man who was defeated by life. Was the movie a classic? I don't think so, but I think his performace was.

"Hillary Swank for Boys Don't Cry"

A to the men. Bitch about her "I'm just a girl from a trailer park" speech for "Million Dollar Baby", but she was fucking incredible in BDC.

"And while I am delighted that Frances McDormand got it for her brilliant performance, that was also the year of Emily Watson in Breaking The Waves."

Nothing better than debating two incredible female performances.

I'll 3rd the questioning of Platoon.

It certainly gets points for broaching Vietnam, especially given the historical context but it sure doesn't hold up in hindsight. Overwrought, both over and reductively written and overall about as subtle as watching Oliver Stone slap you in the face with his salmon-colored meat cock.

I'd have voted for either Hannah and her Sisters or The Mission.

Your sarcasm is legendary Lucas.

Now then, in regards to my responses, Sharopa, I'm a 16 year old boy, most of us are juvenile. And regardless of how right Dustin is most of the time, he really needs to know when he misses the mark. To show you all I'm actually thinking clearly, I'll avoid profanity in this post.

Smokin, they deserved the praise they got. You can't completely adapt all of Lord of the Rings, even with 3 hour run times. The script wasn't perfect, but it was still well done given the constraints. Really, other than Finding Nemo and Spirited Away, no other film that came out during that time period can lay claim to deserving Best Picture as much as those films. Most of the hatred people feel for those films is because of the money they made, why else would Dustin be able to get away with insulting the original Star Wars movies and get away with it for so many people?

I saw them and read the books, my mother did the same, except she read the books much earlier than me obviously, and we both loved the films, and respected the way they were executed. Ian McKellen and Sean Astin were robbed for Best Supporting Actor. And the films had the best score since Star Wars.

But lack of competition isn't enough, they were just plain good. They just are.

And figgy, I really don't want to say this, and even thought I want to hate that film, Titanic wasn't that bad, in fact, it was actually a good movie. Is it James Cameron's best work, certainly not! (T2 and Aliens) Does it deserve to be the number 1 box office draw, hell no! But neither was it the abomination unto the Academy's reputation that was Crash or Benjamin Button. I say this only to point out that people hate Titanic because of Celine Dion (who deserves every ounce of hate she recieves) and it's box office draw. The same thing is true for Lord of the Rings, (Dion was replaced by the much more tolerable, but still agravating Enya.) proving that nothing ever changes.

Sometimes, quality, awards and box office draw intersect. We just have to learn to accept that. The movie is often over hyped, or has no competition, but it's still a good film. Plus, I don't want Ben Affleck or Robin Williams to have a bucketful of awards after Gigli and RV.

Titanic had a horrible, cheesy script pulled out of Writing Cheap Romance 101. It was a big, cheesy spectacle. I agree that it deserved a lot of awards (particularly for Costume Design) and I really like the movie, but it was an unoriginal, cheesy plot that just happened to take place on the Titanic.

I loved Lord of the Rings, don't get me wrong. I adore the books and I watched Return of the King 6 times in the theater, but even in my fangirl heart I know that it wasn't genius film making. It was HUGE movie, and important and innovative, but it suffered from Peter Jackson's desperately needing to make it HIS movie. Does that make sense? I think Fellowship was a better movie, but the ROTK Oscar just felt like it was an obligatory award, rather than a deserved one.

Jeebus. I love talking about awards too much.

You still can't make me a give a shit about the Oscars or any awards show. The nominees get paid really well to do their jobs (the few people who actually do get nominated, lots and lots of other deserving people get left out), not sure why anyone cares whether or not one of them gets an ugly-ass statue as "recognition" on top of that. It's a scam.

Platoon sucked

FourKings>> One of those is not like the other. Lubezki lost.

Tony takes first spot?

His Lecter acting nod is one of those rare instances where the Academy gave out a goldnakedman too early. Butler Stevens in Remains was a much better performance.

Yes, yes, I'm one off those assholes who prefers Brian Cox' portrayal of Lecter. Especially after watching Hannibal and Red Dragon. It's all tics.

Michael Douglas for Wall Street - though I must say that Charlie Sheen broke my damn heart in that movie.

As to Titanic - sure it's bloated and portrays the Irish as happy little woodland sprites and Italians as hot-tempered, but there are so many overhyped movies out there that detested (like Shakespeare in Love). That being said, It Happened One Night owns Titanic on every level.

I'm kind of late to this discussion, but I was never able to figure out why If No Country for Old Men was able to win Best Picture, then why not Fargo, a superior film and definitely the Coen bros' best? Maybe I missed something, but I didn't think NCFOM was best picture material. Good movie, yes.

And, to Soylent Green...I have to agree with you that Javier Bardem didn't deserve BSA last year. Even though I ADORE him. Tom Wilkenson did for Michael Clayton. He was brilliant in it.

AND, thank you, Hoof Hearted, for calling attention to the worst snub of the past 25 years: Tommy Lee Jones winning BSA over Ralph Fiennes. Who was kick-ass in In Bruges.

Booyah out.