Oscars 2015

Redmayne was excellent. Jones was paint-peelingly boring.

Yeah. She was the only nominee who wasn't even praised a little and disappeared from all mention.

So who's winning? My money is on Birdman.

It certainly has the profile of a best picture winner.

Emmanuel Lubezki is an excellent cinematographer; I wonder if he'll ever win an Oscar for a non-stunt.

Stunts or no, he should have won for Tree of Life or Children of Men. Or The New World.

well, Gordon Willis was only nominated for Zelig and The Godfather Part III. That's right, no Pakulas, no Gf i/ii, no Manhattan.

Angelina POW movie will win.

see u in Feb.

― this horrible, rotten slog to rigor mortis (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:19 PM (4 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

anyway never doubt the milquetoast taste of TIFF audiences, The Imitation Game is totally taking this

― Simon H., Wednesday, October 15, 2014 7:41 PM (4 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

honest question: is birdman winning better or worse than either of those predicted outcomes (one of which wasn't even possible)?

i think Birdman is about as shitty as TIG

All things are possible, my son.

marginally better probably, though I'm not a fan (didn't see either of the other ones lol)

Even second-rate work from the man rightfully cited by last Sunday's best director winner as the preeminent artist working in mainstream films is by default better than most other alternatives.

(I def hold Lubezki's artistry above practically every director currently working.)

best part of the oscars

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/02/23/henry_hobson_interview_meet_the_man_behind_the_oscars_beautiful_animated.html

Even second-rate work from the man rightfully cited by last Sunday's best director winner as the preeminent artist working in mainstream films is by default better than most other alternatives.

― Eric H.,

didn't know he liked Clint Eastwood

ok, tho i don't know how you compare people who have different job descrips, especially when we don't know what cinematography is, precisely, from film to film [sic] in the digital age.

xxp i was looking at those during the show and being like "these are amazing," followed by "oh god does flipping out over graphic design this mean i've worked in marketing way too fucking long?"

*like this

also in part from working in Times Square for 4 years, I found very little of Birdman "beautiful."

I've never thought to myself Lubezki's contributions to any given movie made them markedly worse.

I walked on Birdman after 30 mins and still liked it more that TIG which I sat thru b/c companions

we never got into the weirdly condescending NPHarris bit with Oyelowo reading a joke in His Classy Accent but we don't have to.

one of many weird and uncomfortable audience interaction moments

there wasn't one good joke

NPH was legit worse than Franco/Hathaway. Worse than Letterman.

Tho not worse than Billy Crystal, mercifully.

Letterman wasn't bad.

Honestly, tho, I'm glad for it. NPH's armor was due for a little tarnish.

we never got into the weirdly condescending NPHarris bit with Oyelowo reading a joke in His Classy Accent but we don't have to.

― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius),

I thought you couldn't watch it

got a feed, how do you think i was on this thread commenting smartguy

NPH's "armor," oh so mighty. i'm glad i have concrete reasons to actively dislike his boring ass now. (yeah, go ahead)

Man, maybe I do need to actually watch this whole thing if it turns out that NPH was worse than Franco and Hathaway. Kinda feel like I need to witness that kind of trainwreck myself.

Letterman was probably the best host of the last 25 years btw cuz he turned the shit into an episode of his show.

He wasn't worse than Franco and Hathaway. Terrence Howard wouldn't have been worse than Franco and Hathaway.

Scharpling and Wurster should host next year.

Couldn't help but notice that the "Two people who absolutely deserve to be here" followed immediately on the heels of Terrence Howard's performance.

― Ad Strawmanem (Old Lunch), Monday, February 23, 2015 9:26 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this was a reference to the two presenters (Oyelowo and Aniston) having deserved best-actor/actress nominations -- an opinion previously expressed by many.

grant that there have been many actresses who have one "best actress" for movies that few have seen or cared about, but surely 'still alice' has to be one of the least-seen movies to earn an oscar for its lead? it's barely made more than its tiny production budget: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=stillalice.htm

i get the feeling that lots of people voted for moore w/o having seen the film, because (a) it's more of an award for a career of outstanding performances and (b) she plays someone with a debilitating illness (see: redmayne).

in fact i think generally speaking a lot about the oscars can be explained by people voting for films they haven't seen.

reminds me of Jessica Lange winning for Blue Sky.

i'm imagining nicolas cage winning an oscar for playing a guy slowly dying of morgellon's in a film that nobody actually saw and in fact was not even made apart from a clips reel and a trailer.

well, he ain't due, fortunately

you think he's squandered his career too obviously? or has he already won an oscar? i don't keep track of these things.

career/talent

Bad Morgellon's: Port of Disease Movie

you think he's squandered his career too obviously? or has he already won an oscar?

both

ok, then how about

michael keaton in the joni mitchell story

Jessica Lange ruled in Blue Sky...lots of unusual factors behind her win tho.

i.e. one of the worst year for actresses in my lifetime. She was terrific, yeah, and I rooted for her. Her only competition was the also due Susan Sarandon.

glenda jackson won a few oscars for films that nobody really seems to have cared much about (then or, especially, now). and simone signoret got what was essentially a career award for "room at the top."

"monster's ball" is kind of one of these (a "searing" performance by reputation in a film nobody especially cared about and few saw), and also occasioned the acceptance speech that made me stop watching the oscar telecast for a decade.

Roger Ebert adored Monster's Ball, right? #1 film of his that year. The guy was orignal, I'll give'em that.

well ppl cared more about Women in Love than A Touch of Class.

"one of the worst years for actresses" -- you look hard enough you can find someone as good/better than the shit that's won. Even in studio movies.

well, that's always true, but as always there's a formula for what gets recognized at the oscars.

i think a lot of people caught up w/ monster's ball /after/ the award -- in theaters and esp. on home video (b/c "halle berry titties").

just as more people will probably rent 'still alice' now, although that'll be mitigated by "is this the alzheimer's movie? nah, too depressing." esp since it's not a "triumph over adversity" movie like "theory of everything."

one of the worst years for actresses" -- you look hard enough you can find someone as good/better than the shit that's won. Even in studio movies.

― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), T

I'm talking about nominated performances. Are you always in lecture mode?