He should have won for Mystic River, I really hated the Lord of the Rings Trilolgy. Just a little to nerdy for me.
Oh well maybe next year !
Oh well maybe next year !
Clinton Eastwood was robbed !
- Thread starter NightCrawler
- Start date
The real problem is the academy screwed lotr over the past 2 years and they had some makeups to give so many other good movies didnt win because of that.... I personally thought seabiscuit was better than Mystic River.
You would think for a movie to win best picture that it would need good acting. However, LOTR:ROTK did not have any nominations in any of the acting categories. Makes you wonder.
BurnItDwn
Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 26,346
- 1,858
- 126
For some reason I didn't really like Mystic River too much. I guess it was too much Drama and not enough action for my liking.
I am a pretty big Clint Eastwood fan usually, His directing and acting skills are supurb. The Outlaw Josey Wales is the greatest movie ever created IMO. As far as other movies he directed, Unforgiven, The Gauntlet, Bronco Billy, Sudden Impact, High Plains Drifter, Absolute Power, Space Cowboys, and Bloodwork are all great. Perhaps I was just expecting something different, or Mystic River is just not my style of movie ... but I didn't like it very much.
I am a pretty big Clint Eastwood fan usually, His directing and acting skills are supurb. The Outlaw Josey Wales is the greatest movie ever created IMO. As far as other movies he directed, Unforgiven, The Gauntlet, Bronco Billy, Sudden Impact, High Plains Drifter, Absolute Power, Space Cowboys, and Bloodwork are all great. Perhaps I was just expecting something different, or Mystic River is just not my style of movie ... but I didn't like it very much.
No I don't think so. There are alot of parts that make a movie. And another thing, it may be difficult to gauge acting quality with a fantasy movie like LOTR compared to filmy movies.
Makes you wonder about what? As its name suggests "best picture" is given the picture that is best overall. Acting doesn't represent the overall quality of a movie any more than any other single aspect of filmmaking does. If any single factor could take the lead as "most important" it would have to be the screenplay. I don't care how much talent you have working in front of the camera and behind the scenes if you don't have a good screenplay, a good story, you aren't going to have a good movie.
Lethal
The acting was good. If you don't take my word for it, remember that the Screen Actors Guild (comprised of actors) gave it the "best ensemble" award.
You don't need a movie with that many characters to have one dominating performance. At least for me, suspsension of disbelief was achieved, and the story was told well. I have no need to exclaim "wow, that [actor X] has some great chops - they deserve an award" while watching a great movie. All the individual noms were better individually than any one LOTR actor/actress, but in terms of the total impact of the entire cast, LOTR:ROTK is up there, and hence the SAG recognition.
If you watch the extras on the LOTR DVDs, and realize just how huge of an endeavor this project was for everyone involved, then you realize just how much this project deserves the highest levels of recognition. The actors gave up their lives for years. Thousands of authentic armor and weapons were smithed with TLC (some armor pieces even had ornate engravings on the inside, which never had a chance of being onscreen - that's dedication). New line threw an unprecedented amount of money at a director who had never previously produced a box office blockbuster (although "Bad Taste" is an awesome movie, IMO).
I was at an Oscar party tonight with someone who had worked for Miramax when they were contracting LOTR from Peter Jackson, and she described the total lack of balls from that studio. They kept sending people to New Zealand wanting to be told to kill the project, and those people kept reporting back that the movie (it was just going to be one movie at the time) had amazing potential. They even sent some bigwig who had "titanic" embroidered on all his clothing to subtly remind everyone that he was involved with the production of Titanic (forget whether he told Miramax what they wanted to hear or agreed with his predecessors). Eventually Peter Jackson got the hint and said something like "look, if you're so worried about this movie, let me shop it around to other studios and see if we can get someone else to buy it and take it off of your hands." The rest is history.
My point is, in an industry where people make one good move and then milk any initial popularity with half-assed sequels until the well dries up, it's damn refreshing to see a group of filmakers and actors make 3 solidly good movies. Even if you didn't personally enjoy LOTR (to each their own), take heart in the fact that Holywood loves to imitate past success, and perhaps we'll see more strong licenses scripted and filmed together in a single period. Sequels where the good actors and stories you liked in the first movie are guaranteed to be around in the same spirit as the first.
Clint Eastwood has had plenty of recognition for his talents already. The only person who I feel was robbed at this year's oscars was Bill Murray. Sean Penn annoys the hell out of me, and I considered his performance in River the biggest pile of overacted **** I've seen in a long time. Maybe after "I am sam" and this role, he'll allow himself to take some normal, less over the top role and leave the "prove I have chops" type roles to better actors.
You don't need a movie with that many characters to have one dominating performance. At least for me, suspsension of disbelief was achieved, and the story was told well. I have no need to exclaim "wow, that [actor X] has some great chops - they deserve an award" while watching a great movie. All the individual noms were better individually than any one LOTR actor/actress, but in terms of the total impact of the entire cast, LOTR:ROTK is up there, and hence the SAG recognition.
If you watch the extras on the LOTR DVDs, and realize just how huge of an endeavor this project was for everyone involved, then you realize just how much this project deserves the highest levels of recognition. The actors gave up their lives for years. Thousands of authentic armor and weapons were smithed with TLC (some armor pieces even had ornate engravings on the inside, which never had a chance of being onscreen - that's dedication). New line threw an unprecedented amount of money at a director who had never previously produced a box office blockbuster (although "Bad Taste" is an awesome movie, IMO).
I was at an Oscar party tonight with someone who had worked for Miramax when they were contracting LOTR from Peter Jackson, and she described the total lack of balls from that studio. They kept sending people to New Zealand wanting to be told to kill the project, and those people kept reporting back that the movie (it was just going to be one movie at the time) had amazing potential. They even sent some bigwig who had "titanic" embroidered on all his clothing to subtly remind everyone that he was involved with the production of Titanic (forget whether he told Miramax what they wanted to hear or agreed with his predecessors). Eventually Peter Jackson got the hint and said something like "look, if you're so worried about this movie, let me shop it around to other studios and see if we can get someone else to buy it and take it off of your hands." The rest is history.
My point is, in an industry where people make one good move and then milk any initial popularity with half-assed sequels until the well dries up, it's damn refreshing to see a group of filmakers and actors make 3 solidly good movies. Even if you didn't personally enjoy LOTR (to each their own), take heart in the fact that Holywood loves to imitate past success, and perhaps we'll see more strong licenses scripted and filmed together in a single period. Sequels where the good actors and stories you liked in the first movie are guaranteed to be around in the same spirit as the first.
Clint Eastwood has had plenty of recognition for his talents already. The only person who I feel was robbed at this year's oscars was Bill Murray. Sean Penn annoys the hell out of me, and I considered his performance in River the biggest pile of overacted **** I've seen in a long time. Maybe after "I am sam" and this role, he'll allow himself to take some normal, less over the top role and leave the "prove I have chops" type roles to better actors.
rh71
No Lifer
- Aug 28, 2001
- 52,844
- 1,049
- 126
LOTR is too nerdy... the whole premise of it. How many people in our society are actually interested in fables with hobbits and wizards... dragons and all that stuff ? Not as many as people want to believe.
I'm all for sci-fi and I was dragged to watch ROTK, but it's not for everyone... I fell asleep until all the action started mid-way through the movie. I couldn't care less how they lived happily ever after with the kid and all...
Clint was robbed - should've received something for his masterpiece. Just not the right year, I suppose.
I'm all for sci-fi and I was dragged to watch ROTK, but it's not for everyone... I fell asleep until all the action started mid-way through the movie. I couldn't care less how they lived happily ever after with the kid and all...
Clint was robbed - should've received something for his masterpiece. Just not the right year, I suppose.
Modeps
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 17,254
- 44
- 91
Mystic River was the first movie that I've actually fallen asleep in the movies at. So long, so boring. Clint's a great director, but this time... he was off the mark. The acting was definately superb as well, it just failed to keep my attention at all.
EDIT: Oh yah, as for Lost in Translation? Overrated. Bill Murray was great in it, but I really dont see what the big deal is with it.
EDIT: Oh yah, as for Lost in Translation? Overrated. Bill Murray was great in it, but I really dont see what the big deal is with it.
I know man he was robbed. I mean Peter Jackson took what, a measly 4-5 years of his life turning one of the most celebrated novels in the history of the English language into a dozen hours of film that earned the blessing of all but the most anal-retentive Tolkien fans, captured the worlds imagination and earned over a billion dollars. Big whoop.
Just FYI, the correct insult for fantasy fans is geeky or dorky, not nerdy.
Just FYI, the correct insult for fantasy fans is geeky or dorky, not nerdy.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter