trinityvixen (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
trinityvixen) wrote2005-01-25 11:23 am
trinityvixen) wrote2005-01-25 11:23 am
Oscar Watch
Okay, does anyone care about the movies/actors/actresses nominated this year? Per my usual, it seems, I haven't seen a single one of the nominated films. At least, for the past three years, I had seen Lord of the Rings, so there was one I could cheer for, and last year was friggin sweet in that respect.
But really, this year...I have no idea. I mean, I like Johnny Depp, but my only impressions of Finding Neverland weren't good, if I want to be kind about it, and I had no desire to see it (plus, the creepy-as-hell trailer for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has put me off Depp for a while). Jamie Foxx...I don't want him to win. I don't know Ray from Adam, but it seems to me that giving an Oscar to someone for basically doing an impression is kind of wrong. I'm sure the movie was all that and a bag of chips, but I dunno. Biopics, meh. And don't get me started on The Aviator. Not your year this time either, Martin. I guess I could be excited for Don Cheadle being nominated for Hotel Rwanda. That at least got a good review, he's a very strong actor, I like him, but his odds aren't great. At least we can be thankful that the Oscars are opening up ethnically--two African American actors nominated? What were the odds five years ago? (Don't tell me, I'll get depressed about the state of the nation, again)
Actress, meh, not at all interested. If Maria Full of Grace was as good as the hype, give it to that girl. I'm actually annoyed with Million Dollar Baby as I've yet to see a sports film that struck me as Oscar-worthy to the degree that people are crowing over this one. I feel the same way about Sideways--when people won't shut up about a movie, I get turned right off it. I was actually glad that the Times re-reviewed Sideways and the hype surrounding it, and the guy was like, "It's not that good, people. It's good, but let's leave the hyperbole out of our reviews."
What's perhaps the only interesting thing to come out of this is the fact that neither The Passion nor Fahrenheit 9/11 are in the running for anything big. Mostly, I'm relieved about the absence of The Passion from contension, and F-9/11, too, if it comes to that. I'm sure both are 'good' (I've only seen Fahrenheit), but they're both agenda films, and agenda films aren't really what I'd call movies. The Passion, if it were to be nominated, would not have easily settled into the 'best film' category as the people who helped it earn $500 billion zillion would probably object to its being considered a fictional account, just as they would object to Michael Moore's film being considered a documentary. Oh well, I hear Super-Size Me is good enough to merit a win there.
Gah, the only reason I would watch this year's show is to make sure that The Incredibles wins best animated movie. True, it has scant competition--I mean, Polar Express didn't make it up there and Shark Tale did? Aren't they both equally crap just one looks better? However, it's up against Shrek 2. I'm going to offend the Shrek fans here, but the Shrek movies are just substandard Pixar. Shrek was cute enough, but it's old-school Disney under a different name with a different look--get the mega-wattage voices of huge stars, make them adorable or adorably ugly animated characters, watch them dance and bring in the bucks. Shrek 2 was more topical humor, with the "look! ha-ha! Get it! We made stores you find in real life...ta-da! MEDIEVAL!" gags of just trying too fucking hard. I liked the whole 'it doesn't matter what you look like' blah-di-dee-dah, and Puss n'Boots is the most AWWWWW-worthy kitty ever to grace the screen, but the movie wasn't even as good as the first one, which I didn't think was that good to begin with.
What worries me is that Pixar's come away with the statue now, what, every time since they made animated films a separate category? I would hate to see Oscar, in its attempt to give statues to everyone who's ever deserved one, even when the role they're nominated for is crap, give the statue to Shrek 2. Whether you like Shrek 2 or not, you have to concede that The Incredibles is a better movie. Perhaps not as fun, not as funny, but better. Better animated, better style, better story. I'm still of the mind that The Incredibles hits too close to home to ever be a favorite of mine, and its seriousness can work against it, but I will defend it as probably one of the best movies ever made, let alone one of the best animated movies ever made. Definitely better than Shark Tale, at any rate.
It's actually pretty pissy that the Oscar for animated films is a separate category as I think Finding Nemo and DEFINITELY The Incredibles could have stood a decent chance for the Best Picture Oscar, especially as The Incredibles doesn't come up against any LOTR pictures. The Incredibles is so mature, so complex, so real it almost doesn't deserve to be relegated to the animated picture category. It makes it hard to appreciate the animated films that are films first, animation second. Like when Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture--I think it sent the message that animation is as serious as live action, with its own (forgive the pun) beauty, honor, acting, the works. It's basically harkening back to the days of radio, where a good actor made the scene come alive in the old radio shows. I wonder if they'll start giving Oscars for voiced characters, like Gollum (Andy Serkis, you were robbed!). The Incredibles, by pushing the story rather than the glamour of 'realistic' animation (like the fish in Finding Nemo, if not the people), does more for mainstreaming animation that is less kiddie-friendly and more adult. And no film that does that deserves anything less than full recognition as a cinematic best.
But really, this year...I have no idea. I mean, I like Johnny Depp, but my only impressions of Finding Neverland weren't good, if I want to be kind about it, and I had no desire to see it (plus, the creepy-as-hell trailer for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has put me off Depp for a while). Jamie Foxx...I don't want him to win. I don't know Ray from Adam, but it seems to me that giving an Oscar to someone for basically doing an impression is kind of wrong. I'm sure the movie was all that and a bag of chips, but I dunno. Biopics, meh. And don't get me started on The Aviator. Not your year this time either, Martin. I guess I could be excited for Don Cheadle being nominated for Hotel Rwanda. That at least got a good review, he's a very strong actor, I like him, but his odds aren't great. At least we can be thankful that the Oscars are opening up ethnically--two African American actors nominated? What were the odds five years ago? (Don't tell me, I'll get depressed about the state of the nation, again)
Actress, meh, not at all interested. If Maria Full of Grace was as good as the hype, give it to that girl. I'm actually annoyed with Million Dollar Baby as I've yet to see a sports film that struck me as Oscar-worthy to the degree that people are crowing over this one. I feel the same way about Sideways--when people won't shut up about a movie, I get turned right off it. I was actually glad that the Times re-reviewed Sideways and the hype surrounding it, and the guy was like, "It's not that good, people. It's good, but let's leave the hyperbole out of our reviews."
What's perhaps the only interesting thing to come out of this is the fact that neither The Passion nor Fahrenheit 9/11 are in the running for anything big. Mostly, I'm relieved about the absence of The Passion from contension, and F-9/11, too, if it comes to that. I'm sure both are 'good' (I've only seen Fahrenheit), but they're both agenda films, and agenda films aren't really what I'd call movies. The Passion, if it were to be nominated, would not have easily settled into the 'best film' category as the people who helped it earn $500 billion zillion would probably object to its being considered a fictional account, just as they would object to Michael Moore's film being considered a documentary. Oh well, I hear Super-Size Me is good enough to merit a win there.
Gah, the only reason I would watch this year's show is to make sure that The Incredibles wins best animated movie. True, it has scant competition--I mean, Polar Express didn't make it up there and Shark Tale did? Aren't they both equally crap just one looks better? However, it's up against Shrek 2. I'm going to offend the Shrek fans here, but the Shrek movies are just substandard Pixar. Shrek was cute enough, but it's old-school Disney under a different name with a different look--get the mega-wattage voices of huge stars, make them adorable or adorably ugly animated characters, watch them dance and bring in the bucks. Shrek 2 was more topical humor, with the "look! ha-ha! Get it! We made stores you find in real life...ta-da! MEDIEVAL!" gags of just trying too fucking hard. I liked the whole 'it doesn't matter what you look like' blah-di-dee-dah, and Puss n'Boots is the most AWWWWW-worthy kitty ever to grace the screen, but the movie wasn't even as good as the first one, which I didn't think was that good to begin with.
What worries me is that Pixar's come away with the statue now, what, every time since they made animated films a separate category? I would hate to see Oscar, in its attempt to give statues to everyone who's ever deserved one, even when the role they're nominated for is crap, give the statue to Shrek 2. Whether you like Shrek 2 or not, you have to concede that The Incredibles is a better movie. Perhaps not as fun, not as funny, but better. Better animated, better style, better story. I'm still of the mind that The Incredibles hits too close to home to ever be a favorite of mine, and its seriousness can work against it, but I will defend it as probably one of the best movies ever made, let alone one of the best animated movies ever made. Definitely better than Shark Tale, at any rate.
It's actually pretty pissy that the Oscar for animated films is a separate category as I think Finding Nemo and DEFINITELY The Incredibles could have stood a decent chance for the Best Picture Oscar, especially as The Incredibles doesn't come up against any LOTR pictures. The Incredibles is so mature, so complex, so real it almost doesn't deserve to be relegated to the animated picture category. It makes it hard to appreciate the animated films that are films first, animation second. Like when Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture--I think it sent the message that animation is as serious as live action, with its own (forgive the pun) beauty, honor, acting, the works. It's basically harkening back to the days of radio, where a good actor made the scene come alive in the old radio shows. I wonder if they'll start giving Oscars for voiced characters, like Gollum (Andy Serkis, you were robbed!). The Incredibles, by pushing the story rather than the glamour of 'realistic' animation (like the fish in Finding Nemo, if not the people), does more for mainstreaming animation that is less kiddie-friendly and more adult. And no film that does that deserves anything less than full recognition as a cinematic best.
no subject
Don't write it off so completely. I haven't seen the movie itself but I saw the making of. For one Jamie was working side by side with Ray during the making of the movie. If he got something wrong, Ray let him know it. I had little faith in the movie at first once I learned it was Jamie Foxx playing the part, but when I saw the work and effort he put into the character I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. For Jamie to not play a comedic roll was big enough, but to get Ray's seal of approval on his acting, piano work, and singing tells me the Jamie belongs in the running for an Oscar and I hope he wins.
no subject
I'd never heard of him before I did a marketing survey for Collateral, and that's still the only thing of his I've seen & the only one besides the Ray Charles biopic that I've heard of...