Tuesday, January 31, 2006

The Good. The Bad. The Ugly (Even More Thoughts on the Oscar Noms)

The Good
1. Lots of first-timers. Good to have the Academy getting new blood in there. They obviously need it.

2. As far as former winners go: Really happy to see William Hurt return to Oscar's former warm embrace after a 18 year dry spell. I saw it coming... but chickened out but two days before nominations in predicting it.

3. Pride & Prejudice did reasonably well. Yay.

4. Ubiquitous and pushy campaigns paid off for some of the deserving people (Amy Adams!) but not for all of the undeserving (Cinderella Man)

5. Best Animated Feature actually ignored the big studio CG and went for the actual three best animated films. Imagine it!

The Bad
1. Munich survived the ho-hum screening reactions indicating that that pre-ordained status will --more often than not (see also Gangs of New York) get you past a lot of troubling reactions. People often do vote "how they're supposed to." Not that Munich is a bad film or anything. But definitely not one of the 5 most well regarded or one of the five most beloved or one of the five most successful. So what exactly is it doing here?

2. Neither of my two favorite female performances made it. Joan Allen's snub you can blame on the Globes. They killed off her momentum to honor, Charlizzzzzzzzz. What --oh. Sorry. Excuse me for slobbering on the pillow. I nodded off. Maria Bello's is harder to explain. It's the second very visible cold-shouldering from the AMPAS voters.

The Ugly
1. I don't know any other way to put this so sorry for the vulgarity
[ahem] --when will the composing branch ever get tired of sucking John Williams dick? You'd think the slavish and excessive generosity/worship would get embarrassing for them once in awhile. NOBODY and I do mean nobody (not Brando. not Streep. not Almodovar. not Sandy Powell. not Edith Head. not anyone --no matter how brilliant) deserves an Oscar nomination every year of their career. And nobody else gets one every year of their career. It's an impossibility that you can be the best for your entire life on every assignment that you take. Blech. And he's hogging 40% of the Score category. AGAIN. I feel sick. If he had any decency he would personally remove his genitals from their insatiable mouths and ask to be ineligible from here on out (a la Bill Cosby back in the Emmy days for The Cosby Show) because they clearly are out of control in their wild-eared lust for him. (If you're not sick of this rant yet by some strange happenstance--there's even MORE over at the site --because sometimes I can't shut up. It's less vulgar though.)

2. No David Cronenberg. This has to be their most egregious error this year. And he even campaigned! Some people are just too talented for middlebrow Oscar recognition. Ah, well. His films are their own rewards.

Now, YOU play along:
Name ONE thing in each category: GOOD, BAD, UGLY in the comments section.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good: NO ZHIYI ZHANG FOR MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA and Munich getting the recongnition it deserves

Bad: Crash. Everyone saw it coming, but its six nominations get on my nerves. Also, the lack of five original song slots espeicailly since this was a good year in this category (Narnia/The Producers/The Corpse Bride?)

Ugly: The sheer predictability of every category. I love Capote, but Bennett Millers directing job is in no way one of the five best of the year (see Woody Allen, danny boyle,christopher nolan, peter jackson, etc). Also, the love for North Country (Charlize Theron taking away Joan Allen's spot and Frances Mcdormand polluting this years fun and interesting Best Supporting Actress category)

Henry Chung said...

Good: AMY ADAMS!! Keira Knightley. No recognition of Zhang Ziyi (she's not a world-class actor yet). William Hurt.

Bad: Walk the Line being shut out anfd Munich in. No Woody Allen in director category.

Ugly: The matching up of pics/directors. Bennett Miller and Paul Haggis not world-class directors. Jake Gyllenhaal nominated in supporting and not lead actor.

Nick Davis said...

GOOD: The Cinematographers sticking up for The New World, even though its commitment to all-natural lighting sometimes leads to uneven framings and lighting effects... often a no-no with them. (Why the Costume Designers, Makeup people, Art Directors, etc., couldn't get their shit together, I'm not sure.)

Plus, I have to respectfully disagree with Anonymous and say how THRILLED I am by the narrowed field for Best Song, because I thought it was a very poor year in that category.

BAD: I refuse to stop repeating this - if Reese Witherspoon wins, it'll be the slimmest and easiest performance in over 20 years to do so. As is, the category is bad. Not terrible performances, but almost zero inspiration. I'm one of those who thinks Huffman is the easy pick from this lot, and even so, I'm hardly elated. (And it's my favorite category! Sniff, sniff...)

UGLY: That Makeup lineup is WACK.

right said...

apologies for breaking the rule, but a comment on your #1 about the abundance of first-timers. All acting nominees combined have only 13 previous nominations, beating last year (14) as the lowest total since 1996 (which, astonishingly, had 7, the lowest total since the '30s when the Oscars were still quite new).

This year actually had a pretty good chance to break the record, if

1) William Hurt (3 previous noms) had not slipped in ahead of Terrence Howard or Frank Langella

2) Frances McDormand (3) hadn't robbed Maria Bello

3) Charlize (1) had been dropped rather than Ziyi Zhang

None of these would have been all that surprising, and would have left mortal locks Judi Dench (4) and Joaquin Phoenix (1), and very likely nominee Catherine Keener (1) as the only previous nominees, for a total of 6 -- THAT would have been a fresh-faced crowd.

Incidentally, none of the categories wound up having all first timers -- the last time that happened was Supporting Actress in 1999 with Jolie, Collette, Sevigny, Keener, and Morton.

Anonymous said...

I can't think of any major gripes beyond the ones you've mentioned (many of which - Allen, Bello, Williams - I LOUDLY echo).

My biggest disappointments beyond those were in the Editing and Cinematography categories. I desperately craved mentions of 2046, Jarhead and Match Point in Cinematography. And I'm disappointed that both Brokeback and History of Violence weren't included in Editing.

But I do breathe a sigh of relief that Dench, Gyllenhaal, and Adams all got acting nods.

However, the intense excitement I feel about Knightley's nomination has knocked me for six (never rated her before, really liked but wouldn't go overboard about her performance, not a patch on Jennifer Ehle, etc, etc)... I must have secretly been rooting for her all this time, without knowing. That's scary.

Rob

NATHANIEL R said...

Rob,

i hear you. Knightley was a weak fifth place in my lineup at the fb awards but i'm really happy. although i think my happiness has more to do with oscar voters actually picking someone different than SAG.

sigh.

i still refuse to see how so many different groups could all be this dull for best actress even in a bad year.

they didn't all make my lineup but it's kinda hard to figure how ALLEN, COLLETTE, WATTS, LINNEY, PALTROW, etc... were shunted aside so regularly for Theron and Zhang. It continues to annoy me, way past its sell-by date.

Jose said...

Good: NOTHING I can think of. This is so damn boring, predictable ugh...ooh maybe Keira Knightley! She got on my nerves sooo much but she shines in this performance, good for her! Proves that you can become good after being bad unlike...

Bad: CHARLIZE THERON!
Ugh! So yeah she's pretty and yeah she's playing agaisnt type again, but come on!
The whole Best Actress category is kinda messy, I was really hoping for a 2003 all over.

Ugly: Munich in Best Picture. It's good but Spielberg's film ALWAYS get unjustified nods! Maybe it is his best film in ages but still it's no way better than some brilliant things that were left out.

Now just give the Oscar to Brokeback, this has turned into the most boring race of the decade, even Million Dollar Baby looks exciting now.

FilmLover said...

The Good: Munich over Walk the Line; Batman Begins for Cinematography (and NO TCG); AHOV for A. Screenplay

The Bad: Director matching 5/5---mix it up, people!

The Ugly: No Cronenberg or Bello. What is UP with that? Walk the Line instead of GNAGL in EDITING. HUH?

Anonymous said...

Good: No Thandie Newton and no second Crasher in Supp.Actor

Bad: BBM missing Editing

Ugly: Crash still having a chance to win BP

L-S

Bryan said...

The Good: Ledger, Hoffman, Witherspoon, Keener, Weisz, Adams, Hurt, and Gyllenhaal, even if most were all but guaranteed. For a less know but quite able director like Bennett Miller. "Capote" really was a very beautiful film; wish it had more supporters on this board.

The Bad: Theron, Giamatti, McDormand. The politicized reactions to these films all over the internet.

The Ugly: Mira Sorvino? How many times has she done this? Why does Oscar insist on trotting out proof its blessing does not translate into career success? And I hate her voice!

par3182 said...

i thought you said one thing in each, so -

good - the best actor line-up

bad - 'crash' getting so many noms, especially the big ones

ugly - my predicting skills

Anonymous said...

Does anyone feel that Ralph Fiennes should have been nominated?

Ryan said...

GOOD:
Gustavo Santaolalla!!!! His haunting score was a transcendent contribution to the film’s aching romance- a snagged him a long overdue nomination!
- Gyllenhaal- We may never know how safe he was but I thought his majesty’s (thefilmbitch’s) comments about his role in relation to awards were very interesting

BAD: No David Cronenberg. Plus it's so boring when Pic matches Direction 5 /5

UGLY:
Brokeback editing snub!
The Joan Allen snub is ugly but the Maria Bello snub is plain atrocious.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, what is it going to take for Ralph Fiennes to finally win Best Actor? God forbid, a terminal illness? A horrible disfiguring accident? A miraculous recovery from a crippling addiction? I really don't get it. He just seems right up AMPAS's alley. Maybe he doesn't like to campaign...Oh well, hope he at least wins at BAFTA.

Ali said...

Good - Voters looking past the (initially) off-putting character and seeing the great performance in Terrence Howard's portrayal of DJay in Hustle & Flow.

Bad - Geisha's cinematography nod, especially when the film looked so blah and unexceptional.

Ugly - Frances McDormand's lame retread (Fargo + Million Dollar Baby) over Maria Bello's fierce and formidable non-baity wife.

JavierAG said...

the good: william hurt & alberto iglesias

the bad: maria bello

the ugly: north country ladies

the simply embarassing: "constant gardener" cinematography snub. idiots.

Anonymous said...

GOOD - Felicity Huffman , Keira Knitghley ,Amy Adams, Terrence Howard ,Paul Giamatti and Munich

BAD - Reese Witherspoon ( I can'stand her), Paul Haggis and Crash

UGLY - No Woody Allen , no Scarlett Johansson , no David Cronnenberg , no Maria Bello ...what a shame !

NATHANIEL R said...

henry -we don't know about miller really. i think capote shows promise. haggis on the other hand --yeesh. and this over Cronenberg? Haneke? Wong Kar Wai? Allen? etc.... it's Ron Howard syndrome.

nick --i would say that the other depts couldn't get it together because TNW had one of the worst campaigns/rollouts/wha--the--fucks releases of anything. ever. because it's hard to argue with the film's beauty. certainly more worthy of six tech nods than (gulp) Memoirs. And on your own blog I commented on your relentlessness with Reese. I say to Oscar voters "Pick Flick!" --not a play on your website of course but on Tracey Flick from Election. and how is this the "easiest / slimmest" in 20 years? That's a LOT of people. And I don't see how Swank (MDB), Hunt (AGAIG) Paltrow (SiL) --lots of slim stuff wins in this category.

[This is the part where if we had a TV show people would love that we were actually fighting instead of constantly complimenting each other ;) ]

Marcelo said...

I wish Ralph Fiennes had had more attention from all awards' groups.
Let's hope the Baftas corrects this.

Anonymous said...

Good: Munich taking Walk the Line's place - Spielberg's is a much more deserving film than the charming, but predictable Walk the Line. Terrence and Amy getting in for the two real breakthrough performances of this year... And Jake not being snubbed (how many of us were relieved when his name was said...)

Bad: All the Capote love - an average film, in my opinion; overrated. Theron and McDormand taking Joan Allen's & Maria Bello's places... unfair.

Ugly: do you guys really thing William Hurt deserves an Oscar for his cameo in A History of Violence!? I love Hurt, in this movie and for all his career, but an Oscar nod is pushing it...

Anonymous said...

Has anyone read Ebert's thoughts yet?

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060131/OSCARS/60131001

Apparently Knightley was an expected nominee and Dench was a surprise. True story.

Does he WORK in the industry?

Rob

NATHANIEL R said...

well at least Hurt wakes you up. this category is SO dull. even the good performances within are not exciting per se. It's just a horrid year for this category... and they're not outre enough to go for crazy stuff like Mickey Rourke in Sin City and Sutherland and Langella were both excellent but Oscar likes either HUGELY showy cameos or Co-Leads. The REAL middleground supporting stuff? Not so much.

Anonymous said...

Good: Constant Gardener for best score. David Strathairn and Jake getting in. The Best Animated Feature category.

Bad: Keira Knightley. One of the most over-rated performances in the most over-rated film of the year. Just try saying the phrase "Academy Award nominee Keira Knightley" out loud a few times. Yuck.

Also: Cinderella Man in Editing over GNaGL and BBM? Come ON.

Ugly: In total agreement re: John Williams. No Ralph Fiennes or Maria Bello- my God, what do those two have to do to get some appreciation from the Academy?

My biggest grip though was the total lack of risk-taking across the board, especially when the Globes set such a good example earlier in the year, one that the Oscars, for whatever reason, chose to ignore.

Bryan said...

Also good: only two of the best pic noms had golden globe noms for best picture, either category. hurray for independent thinking!

Anonymous said...

GOOD:Munich and Steven Spielberg being nominated for one of the best films of the year. Crash and paull Hagiis getting BP and BD nods. Charlize Theron and Terrance Howard being nominated

BAD:King Kong deserved a Best Picture and Director nod. No supporting nod for Mickey rourke Sin City)

UGLY:The New World not being recognized as the wonderful film it is is. Should have been nominated for Best Picture and director.
No Sarlett Johanson
FELICTY HUFFMAN'S NOMINATION FOR A TERRIBLE PERFORMANCE

Anonymous said...

Good: Amy Adams (hooray for Leslie Miller!)

Bad: Munich's multiple noms, which only serve to underscore that it's perfectly acceptable to rush and release an Oscar-bait -- but hardly Oscar-caliber -- film at the very end of the year and still get major L-O-V-E from AMPAS, even if not from the industry and public at large (patooey!)

Ugly: Joan Allen (or rather, her egregious snub)

:-(

Marco

Dr. Mierzwiak said...

GOOD: Howl's Moving Castle!

BAD: Crash (you better not steal Brokeback's oscar...), and not much love for History of Violence

UGLY: So deserving, yet neglected (even by some of us) all year long: Broken Flowers, Millions, 2046, Mysterious Skin.

PS. I'm still bitter about last year's Eternal Sunshine snubs...

douglas said...

The Good:
-Amy Adams getting nominated
-Gustavo Sanatollala getting a nod
-All the Brokeback Nods are very good
-Keira Knightley booting the ever so stupid performance of Zhang Ziyi in Memors of a Geisha
-William Hurt even though this is a cameo role only


The Bad:
- Capote getting nominated even thugh it's one of those irritating OK movies of the year...
- Crash making a splash in the Oscars
- Charlize Theron getting nominated instead of Joan Allen
- No Bello

The Ugly:
- Munich booted Walk the line for the last spot
- No Cronenberg in the race
- John williams getting all that shit nods for doing crap works.

thanks!

http://racsoawards.madur.net/

adam k. said...

GOOD: spreading the wealth for once... this has to be the lowest number of total noms for best pic nominees in a LONG time

BAD: No Walk the Line in best pic means that Reese still has a chance of losing

UGLY: Theron & McDormand instead of Allen & Bello... unforgivable.

RANDOM: Isn't it bizarre how BBM and GNaGL were ignored in editing? The best pic frontrunner is ALWAYS nominated in editing... when's the last time a film won without being nommed for editing? And Brokeback's editing is worthy, too.

And I just want to gloat for a minute about predicting Munich and the double-dipping for John Williams (at least this means he'll probably cancel himself out).

Shawn Elmore said...

Good:

1.) Strathairn not getting booted.

2.) Keira! OMG! And over Zhang!

3.) Gyllenhaal not getting booted.

4.) Amy Adams! Love her.

5.) Pride & Prejudice makes it in Art Direction and Score.

6.) Scarlett missed out on SActress. Thank GOD.

Bad:

1.) Pic/Dir matching 5/5. Boring!

2.) Munich getting nominated in BP.

3.) Howard over Crowe.

4.) McDormand over Bello.

5.) Hurt making it in. Bah.

6.) Screenplays being so boring.

7.) No more love for The New World.

Ugly:

1.) All the nods for Memoirs. I mean, REALLY? SOUND EDITING?? Huh?

2.) Supposedly the song from "Crash" is old and it wasn't "Come What May"-ed. Booo! (though I do like the song, but it's the principle of the thing.

3.) No huge shocks. No Mortons, no Castle-Hughes', no Leighs. Zilch.

4.) Supporting Actor. It just blows.

adam k. said...

Might Hurt get a surprise win in supporting actor? Or Jake, even? I just feel like when looking at their ballots and thinking "George or Paul, George or Paul?" they'll suddenly go "oh whatever, you know what, I LOVED William Hurt in that, I'm just voting for him instead." It could happen... he hasn't been a competitor before... except in the major critics races, which he won.

Anonymous said...

As to adam k.'s RANDOM -

"Ordinary People" was the most recent Best Picture without an Editing nom.; but it has happened more often than one might think. No BP winners were nominated before the 1935 ceremony at which Editing was given out for the first time (with only three noms and none for "It Happened One Night"). The other winners w/o noms are: "Life of Emile Zola", "Hamlet", "Marty", "Tom Jones", "A Man For All Seasons", "The Godfather, Part II" (believe it or not), and "Annie Hall".

- Robbie K.

Cinthia said...

Good: Terrence Howard for getting recognized

Bad: Munich in the best picture race

Ugly: No Maria Bello!?

Gerry said...

I'll play by the rules... ;)

GOOD: William Hurt

BAD: No McDowell

UGLY: No Cronenberg

John T. said...

The Good-The Brokeback nominations (though I say there should have been more)

The Bad-The constant snubs for my favorites (this year they would include Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Watts, and Maria Bello)

The Ugly-While I had no problems with the songs nominated, I think it is unfortunate that The Maker Makes and A Love That Will Never Grow Old (which would have filled out this category so well) weren't submitted.

the boyfriend said...

Bad & Ugly: CRASH - anything and everything related to CRASH. This movie's continued existence is hazardous to my mental health. Yuck.

Carl said...

Good - Keira Knightly gets to play with the grown-ups...so richly deserved.

Bad - I have vented on this elsewhere, but it bears repeating...of the five Best Director nominees, not one can say they directed two leads to nominations. Spielberg drew the collar on all four performing categories. James Mangold's achievement for "Walk The Line" belongs.

Ugly - Whatever tactics the Academy eventually uses to sanitize "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp" during the awards broadcast. If your members have the stones to nominate it, then have the artistic courage to play it as the artists intended.

Anonymous said...

Good: Terrence Howard beating out Russell Crowe for best actor.

Bad: Keira Knightly. Not really that talented...this may be an unpopular opinion, but Zhang Ziyi is a far more promising and deserving young up-and-comer to honor.

Ugly: The Munich love. It really came off to me as a better-than-average Discovery Channel re-enactment

Kamikaze Camel said...

Anonymous (just above me at time of writing) even though Zhang may be the better talented newcomer surely if the perf is bad it shouldn't be nominated. Keira's was good, hence nominated.

GOOD: Keira Knightley & P&P! Howls Moving Castle over bad CGI! Jake Gyllenhaal didn't get snubbed!

BAD: Pic and Director going hand in hand. Where's the spot to honour the Lynches, the Almodovars, the Leighs? I haven't seen Capote (maybe if I had I wouldn't have underestimated it) or Munich but Crash should've been the director left off because as much as I liked it, the flaws it did have come from him.

UGLY: Joan Allen being snubbed! That now makes AMPAS has snubbed her for her two greatest performances - this and Pleasantville. Also, Paul Giamatti - a) because i can't stand the sight of him and b) because he doesn't deserve any close to this award.

Kamikaze Camel said...

Oh, and Memoirs doing so well? SOUND and SOUND EDITING? CINEMATOGRAPHY (it hurts to me insult Dion Beebe, but this was really uninspired and bland work with barely 5 frames showing anything close to his best). blah.

adam k. said...

To Carl:
Well... in a way... Ang Lee directed two leads to nominations. And not even in lead categories (arguably an even greater feat... people only accept fraudulent placement when they REALLY love the perf).

Anonymous said...

GOOD: Pride and Prejudice for Art Direction (it was everything the miniseries should have been)

BAD: Memoirs of a Geisha for Cinematography (It was good, but I am just annoyed that Dion Beebe got nominated for this crap when he couldn't get nominated for his groundbreaking DV work in Collateral, even when the annoyingly ubiquitous Jamie Foxx could). Rant over.

UGLY: No Donald Sutherland. I have recently fallen hard for Donald Sutherland (I attended some repertory screenings of his work and his scenery chewing on Commander in Chief keeps me coming back for more). He was great in Pride and Prejudice (as was Brenda Blethyn in a remarkably nuanced performance for such a hard-to-nuance role) and deserved a nomination too. Paul Giamatti will get a legitimate chance at a nomination and George Clooney already has two nominations to keep him happy. Donald Sutherland could have easily slipped in.

Ramification said...

The Good: Corpse Bride giving Burton his first Oscar nod (surprised that it didnt' get a nod for score or original song)

The Bad: I actually thought William Hurts performance was a bit over the top, slightly out of place with the film's tone and the weakest in AHOV. Ed Harris and Ashton Holmes gave better supporting performances in that film.

The Ugly: Paul Haggis for Best Director. Its a good film, well acted, well scripted, but his heavy-handed approach really left a bitter taste!

Anonymous said...

GOOD: Strathairn. About damn time he got some wider recognition and [shudder] industry approval.

BAD: Not only the absence of Cronenberg and Bello, but the lack of nods in the tech departments for HoV, one of the tightest, most dependable bunches working: not only d.p. Suschitsky, but also editor Ronald Sanders and art director Carol Spier.

UGLY: The continued idiocy of the Foreign Film rules.

And The New World was robbed. Sheer ecstasy, that movie.

Arkaan said...

I agree with the boyfriend.

Despite the composer's regular John Williams hardon (and I fully support a nomination for Munich, my second favourite of the year), they did something they rarely do. They nominated three "newcomers"

Alberto Iglesias, who's deserved at least two nominations for his work on "Bad Education" and "Talk to Her" was nominated for "The Constant Gardener." Gustavo Santaolla was nodded for "Brokeback Mountain," and Dario Marinelli for "Pride and Prejudice." They didn't even do that when they had two scoring categories (seriously, check it out).

Anonymous said...

Just once more (with feeling)...

Good: Well-deserved nods for "A History of Violence" screenplay and Gustavo Santaolalla's "Brokeback Mountain" score.

Bad: "Munich" for best picture instead of "Walk the Line" (boo! hiss!) Why not simply nominate Spielberg for best director (if they must -- very a big if) and spread the wealth a little? Just like "Crash" (another double-dipper), "Walk the Line" was distinguished by its performances and overall look and feel -- not its direction -- so a best picture nomination coulda/shoulda/woulda been in order.

U-G-L-Y: Felicity Huffman's trotting out her patented "wo was me" line at every turn -- interjecting it into what seems like every single fuckin' speech, interview and conversation she has lately with anybody about anything -- instead of simply being gracious, humble and happy for her good fortune. This is the most recent example:

http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/news/reuters/20060201/605.html;_ylt=AgQoXfwkK4Wk88xtDmxSDGF.VLcF

This is starting to sound like such a gimmick, and not a very fresh one either, since Hilary Swank, Teri Hatcher et al, have used the same ploy for effect in their own awards lobbying and/or accepting. Flicka, we don't care that you didn't work for two years (and I'm a fan!), especially now that the world is your oyster via one of the most popular TV shows on the planet.

Please...just...stop. Capish?

Marco

Anonymous said...

Good: Witherspoon and Amy Adams. Both SHOULD win.

Bad: Felicity Huffman. Enough already. This is the most overrated performance since "Monster".

Ugly: All the talk that Felicity will upset Reese. Come on!!! Reese's performance is transcendent. She is the heart, soul and fire if the film. Felicity is a caricature and a total gimmick. The SAG voters (all actors by the way) know the difference.

NATHANIEL R said...

anonymous,

be careful when giving actors that much credit with knowing the difference between a great performance and a gimmick. SAG has had some nominations in their short lifespan that are far more embarrassing than anything Oscar ever came up with in the same time period.

Arkaan said...

My poor Felicity - unsafe from the wrath of the Film Experience readers. :D

That said, I think everyone should take a page from S. Epatha Merkeson's book when giving a speech. She managed to give three funny, heartfelt, DISTINCT speeches for each of her awards. She was gracious and eloquent when accepting her awards, which she had to have known she had a great chance of winning. I wish she was competing in this oscar race.

Kamikaze Camel said...

Surely Nat speaks of such bizarre SAG nominations as Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Flawless. Man, that movie was bad.

The part of the SAG ceremony that made me laugh was when Chris Cooper was all "Renee Zellweger in Cold Mountain, Judi Dench in Chocolat and Kim Basinger in LA Confidential... just three performances that have won Best Supporting Actress from the Screen Actors Guild" (that was totally paraphrased). Apart from Basinger, those are NOT examples to be throwing around as positives, okay.

Gustavo H.R. said...

MUNICH had little support, so you've got to realize the Academy did like the film - remember, it was ignored by other awards groups even though it was a "serious" Spielberg Oscar-bait, as you like to put it.

It is a genuine triumph.

Anonymous said...

Kamikaze Camel,

I hear you on Coop's name dropping of actresses who won SAG awards for mediocre supporting performances in sub-par movies.

If you want to set the SAG awards apart from all of the other groups with awards shows, why would you pick those three? Kate Winslet ("Sense and Sensibility"), Helen Mirren ("Gosford Park"), and even CZJ ("Chicago") would make a much better case, don't you think? Too funny (lol).

Marco

Anonymous said...

black jack
jack black
online black jack
jack strategy free
black jack play
black internet jack
black jack online
black game jack
strategy table jack
black free game jack
casino
hotel casino
best casino
casino affiliate
casino bonus
casino game
in casino
casino strategy mobile
games online casino
casino island
casino on
casino poker
casino royale
casino black grand
craps
online black craps
how to play craps
craps jack free
craps rule
table jack craps
strategy internet craps
craps jack online
gambling craps
craps game
casino craps
hoyle casino 2
internet casino gambling online
casino on online
online casino gambling
free online casino game
free online casino
gambling casino online
online gambling casino
best online casino gambling
play free casino game online
casino hoyle internet

Anonymous said...

best regards, nice info What is class of lexapro Standalone speakers for mp3 players Hummer sut picture Drew modular bookcase