 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Virtual cheers (Bronx variety) to Clark, Victor, Patrick, et al, who dismissed this beautifully crafted work of art.Hearty, well deserved congratulations go out to everyone involved in the making of this three part masterpiece! A toast to the unqualified success of Peter Jackson's envisaging of J.R.R. Tolkien's trilogy: may this interpretatiobn of Tolkien's epic fantasy become an enduring classic enjoyed for generations to come.
BTW, on another note, the hosting of this year's Academy Awards demonstrated, yet again, that Billy Crystal was born to the role.
Cheers,
AuPh
Follow Ups:
Case dismissed.
Maybe you would have liked it if it were in French. It wasn't really an American movie so you don't have to hate it.
What an amazing critique. You must be the most inciteful critic of all time. I'm going to have to rethink my opinion on these films now. Kaka you say. Case dismissed you say. What sophisticated prose. What penetrating and thoughtful analysis. Please tell me more about which films I should enjoy to rise to your lofty standards. Thank god you are here to give us the benefit of your deep wells of cinematic wisdom!
It was more of a personnal message. If you want to spend a whole afternoon on this theme, go and use the search option, please.
There are more words you can bear, I bet.
What key words should we use? "Unsupported dismisals" " I hate English language movies" " I watch obscure movies only" " I hate commercial success"? What key words would you suggest?
Humor?
OK, it would have really been fun if true. But it is not.
No way.
We love, Victor ( I must speaks for him as he is not there, for the moment ) & I, GOOD films, and it wonīt help them taking this approach.
No, we love films from all parts of the world..The only condition is that they are good.
If you argue for LOTR, why donīt you tell us why you like it, Just why?
Calling TLOR Kaka is an assertion that is not worthy of a well thought out rebutal. You guys may very well love what you think are good films. I simply have no respect for such arogant unsupported dismisals. I am sorry for calling it like I see it but I see Victor dismising all American films. This is just nonsense. Anyone can get on a soap box and say everything is crap. I'd like to see it well argued for a change.
Well you did not your home work. Bercause if you would have you would have made a search and read the more than lenghty critics we made about this film. More long as for a " real " ilm I am afraid !
And " Caca " ( here the French version ) is of course meant to be funny, and certainly not as serious as you may take it, but true to the very core.
So why did you foud " LOTR " to be a good film?
The search engine is down but I figured I'd take the time to review Voctor's reviews of some American movies."It seems to me that in that part of the world - and I mean Eastern Europe perhaps even more than the Western one - the interest in the subject that I always find fascinating - the humans with their joys and sufferings - is still very much alive, while here, at Hollywood, it has been completely replaced with the monsters and deviants.
Case in point: a few days back I believe Tin suggested that the Hollywood film with a completely adolescent sounding title Monster was something special.
My reaction - sorry, but I am not going to waste my time and money watching yet another story of a serial killer.
There is something quite degrading in the American fascination with mass murderers, serial killers, morons (John Belushi and the warshipers of his church), deviants of all kinds, anti-social idiots, prostitutes-gone-housewives, and all other sorts of scum, human trash, refuse, garbage... enter your favorite word of disgust here."
Hmm. He didn't even see the movie but simply made a bunch of assumptions about it. But hey, it was an American movie so ho hum.
Here is his review of the classic film "The Right Stuff"
"OK, OK... I watched the Right Stuff last night! It doesn't get any more American!
Can't say I enjoyed it much, though."
Very insightful in depth analysis. Not.Here is another review with a familiar theme...
"Watched Ripley's Game last night... such kakaJust about everything about that film is weak.
A waste of time."
Not much to discuss there. Just another typical dismisal.That is as far as I can scroll back for now.
So when I see a well thought out critique of LOTRs by Victor that actually discusses real cinematic values, I will happily discuss what I liked about LOTRs in rebutal. Till then I think arogant dismisals of the sort I have cited above deserve the same sort of dismisals in response. It doesn't take a lot of thought to say something is kaka.
Almost everything is down today..Save the Film Asylum.
Yes do that! It would only be fair & correct, but not only the US titles! You will see what a quality of judgement Victor is able to upbring.
You see, the point is that almost all Holliwood films are weak and pursuit the only goal to makes money. Nothing against some " fun " films that are well made! But in small dose, please, as to mush could be lethal to your brain.
In general, once you have dismiss at lenght a lot of garbage, you will lose patience and just say....kaka.
I would suggest take a film you really like and put your view on it here, and discuss it with Victor and others.
We are here for the fun, and nothing too serious at all.
We all learn from each others.
I managed to get further back in the archives. Here is what I found on LOTRsVictor:
"She (Victor's wife I believe)undertook to watch it (LOTR ROTK) while I was asleep. The next morning she was upset about spending all that time on garbage - her words."
It apears that Victor hasn't even seen the film. Yet he has dismissed as kaka. There is nothing to respond to. Such a dismisal desrves the same in turn.
Lets look at your comments....
"My son in law had two free tickets for the show and ask me if I would like to come along with him for this film, after an indecisive time of reflexion ( 3 hours for THIS kind of flim..) I remember the polemic on this board and decide to see if I could change my prejudice....Short, no I could not.
Loud, digital for images and sound, in one word depictable.
I wonīt go any longer or deeper on this as every thing is utterly wrong. I can understand for some to have some fun seeing it.
The worst was the never ending end."At least you acknowledged your bias against the movie from the get go but really? Where's the beef. "Everything is utterly wrong"??? What specifically is utterly wrong? Are you saying the story arc is wrong? It is classic myth all the way. What was sooo bad about the ending? Is there a time limmit on excellent endings? If it were too loud perhaps you should choose a better theater for sound. The film makers do not pick the levels for playback. Digital for images? What do you mean? If I am missing any of the in depth discussion on this film please feel free to point out what I have missed. But I have to say Victor has simply dismissed a movie he hasn't seen out of what seems to be his prejudice against "Hollywood." You have more or less just called the movie crap without any meaningful discussion. If there isn't more in depth discussion that I have missed there is really nothing to talk about.
I am sorry if I am raining on a parade but I am not very impressed by people who get on soap boxes and call things kaka even if they are doing it for fun. Arm chair quarterbacks are quick to forget or ignore that the work they dismiss is often the life blood of the filmakers. I wonder how Victor would feel if I simply dismissed his amps kaka. Especially given the fact that I have never auditioned any of them. I suspect his reaction would be much like my reaction has been here. I am glad that you guys enjoy certain movies.It seems that the two of you are stuck in a narrow scope of cinematic taste and are entangled in prejudices against "Hollywood." It seems the fact that LOTRs is considered to be an extraordinarily faithful adaptation of a very dense series of highly critically aclaimed novels is lost on the two of you. If you don't like classic myth fine.This is classic myth at it's best. The depth of work that went into creating another world rich with invented cultures is unparralelled in cinema or literature. The movies and the books from which they are adapted are rich with social, politcal and philsophical comentaries on the *human* existance. If you missed it that is not the film makers' fault. Of course Victor must havbe missed it since he didn't even see the movie. Tales of heros and their journeys are among the oldest stories told, They have value. The juxtapositon of epic tales to the small stories of small characters living through such times and finding the courage to survive and succeed against the odds is evocative of a unique magic that can only be found in well the told stories that are classic myth. There is a reason these stories have survived from the time people gathered around a fire to tell them and hear them to this time where people spend millions of dollars to make such stories for the cinema. Anytime you wish to actually discuss the cinematic merits of LOTRs rather than just trashing it I will happily join in that discussion. Have fun.
You took time and patience, that is good.
Victor wife did took the pencil and wrote a little more on it, if I remember...Victor just comment.
Change my prejudice..After seeing the first two parts, should I have put to electronic paper. So it was not the prejudice you meant.
You see if it would have been a deeply interesting movie I would certainly have more to say on it, but the "utterly wrong " are words directed at people like me who does not have to takes a lot to describe this kind of movies, it is more of a bridge..a short cut if you want, but I also told what was wrong!
Again, it was loud and over digital bright, the actors seems lost behind a blue screen, the story was a little bit confused.
I never read or only if I really can not make my mind, what is more than seldom critic reviews, after writing the few thoughts I had on it I actually did ...and a lot of them like me did find this four endings boring and execessive, but if I were the only one it would not disturb me.
So again what can one discuss of depth, when there is none? Beside that I did wrote a lot more on this film, that it is worth.
Tons and tons.
The problem is that is amps are not kaka.
The way you describe the film is the way this film SHOULD have been.
Helas it is not.
It is noisy, incoherent and badly played. in juxtaposition the " Star Wars " are just a pleasure.
And again I wrote why in more than one post.
See you on a brand new film, with renewed energy!
"You took time and patience, that is good."Thank you.
Victor wife did took the pencil and wrote a little more on it, if I remember...Victor just comment.My dismisal was of Victor's dismisal of a movie he never bothered to watch.
"Change my prejudice..After seeing the first two parts, should I have put to electronic paper. So it was not the prejudice you meant."
Fair enough.
"You see if it would have been a deeply interesting movie I would certainly have more to say on it, but the "utterly wrong " are words directed at people like me who does not have to takes a lot to describe this kind of movies, it is more of a bridge..a short cut if you want, but I also told what was wrong!"Sorry but one cannot rationalize a dismismal without support based on the opinion that the dismisal was warrented. It looks like you are saying you can call a movie crap without explination because you are simply right. I'm not buying that.
"Again, it was loud and over digital bright,"You cannot make a universal claim based on a single viewing in one theater. Most movies are too loud and too bright because they are played back to loudly on systems that are too bright. Not the fault of the film makers.
"the actors seems lost behind a blue screen,"
Not every matt shot was perfect but I'd lay odds you missed the majority of them because they were done so well. It isn't easy to create another world with a rich history without the occassional technical error or the occassional performace problem.
" the story was a little bit confused."The story was very dense with an entirely invented world full of diverse cultures, each with it's own rich history. But if you knew the material you would know that it was amazingly clear given all the content of the books. It is impossible for that much material to be clear on the first viewing.
"I never read or only if I really can not make my mind, what is more than seldom critic reviews, after writing the few thoughts I had on it I actually did ...and a lot of them like me did find this four endings boring and execessive, but if I were the only one it would not disturb me."I am glad that you are independent. However, the ending was IMO neither excessive nor boring. I found the subtle examination of life after the greatest adventure to be quite moving. The pictures of Sam living his life on the Shire after all that he had been through and after loosing his best friend, the person he shared this amazing adventure with to be quite poignient and layered in it's emotional content.
"So again what can one discuss of depth, when there is none?"You aasume to be the arbritator of depth now. the depth is there. Just because you are not in tune with it doesn't make it nonexistant.
" Beside that I did wrote a lot more on this film, that it is worth.
Tons and tons."
I didn't find anymore than what I cited other than more out of hand dismisals. But you are always free to cite what I may have missed.
"The problem is that is amps are not kaka."Niether is LOTRs. The real problem is calling something kaka without even experiencing it.
"The way you describe the film is the way this film SHOULD have been."No I am describing what I saw.
"Helas it is not."LOTRs is arguably the greatest myth of the twentienth century. It is arguably amoung the greatest myths in the history of liturayure. It is inarguably the most developed and carefully thought out myth ever.
"It is noisy, incoherent and badly played."Nope.
in juxtaposition the " Star Wars " are just a pleasure.
The first two are great movies IMO.
"And again I wrote why in more than one post."I haven't found it.
"See you on a brand new film, with renewed energy!"
I think Victor took a look at one of the episode, or a part of it, and I am intend to think that it is for a man of great movies experience, enough time to find out, it is like if your passion is for wine..A little sniffing...a little tasting and you recognise what quality you have..Of course at this, you could with a film be wrong, I remember of a few films that I didsmissed after a few glances and later took a new visioning and...I did like them.
But in the case of LOTR..I can only approve him. The best French movie review " Les Cahiers du Cinema " I found out three weeks ago being in Paris and reading their critic. But I will not want to give you the impression to hide behind any or someone.
I wrote really a lot on this film! Not only what you did found out, and more on the " Outside Asylum " but we complete our review too, you should read the one from " Bernardo " for a more substential ( in your view ) take!
Well, you are right in the way that in " our " discussion " I fail to bring more arguments but this is of my lack of interrest after writing so much on it, and for too long. Try to find the whole thing. There has been two threads, ore more and very long!
Now I will be ready to discuss at any time at any lenght the works of Bergman or others in this league.
;^)
For thatīs what this huge POS is: I have a decent memory, and I have read Tolkienīs books several times..., but I just canīt remember anything about Jacksonīs "The Twin Towers", and only a few scenes from "ROK"! While I can tell you a lot of things about, among many others, "21 Grams",or "Mystic River" or, if we go backwards in time, the whole plot and most details of "The Dead", "Millerīs Crossing", "Angel Heart", "Babetteīs Feast", "Two for the Road", "My Fair Lady", "Chinatown", "To kill a Mockingbird", "The Women", "Citizen Kane", "Touch of Evil", "The Third Man", "Le Chien Andalou", "The Exterminating Angel", "Dersu Uzala", "Ran", "Kagemusha", "Talk to Her"..., and many others, including (to Patrickīs despair) "Les Enfants du Marais"!Iīd dare bet on it fading away very soon..., and only a few ones complaining for it.
Regards
BF
So, after you got busted for the former you started living in Da Nile, or what? ;^D> > > "I have a decent memory..." < < <
After taking in "21 Grams" ...? ;^)
> > > "I just can't remember anything about Jackson's 'The Twin Towers', and only a few scenes from 'ROK'!" < < <
That's okay, that's how the Betty Ford Clinic makes it's money. :o)
> > > "I dare bet on it fading away soon..., and only a few ones complaining for it." < < <
Seek help; I'm sure that there are folks here who'll help you through this if you require intervention. 8^/
Cheers,
AuPh
...when he finds your "humorous" reposts lame...Concerned regards
BF
... instead of continuely trying to blindside LoTR, which happens to be a more rewarding series of films than most of the movies you mentioned. Exceptions: Citizen Kane; however, I place high artistic value on Touch of Evil, The Third Man, Ran (although I prefer Kurosawa's Dreams) and To Kill a Mockingbird as well.AuPh
Although it is an uneven film, "Dreams" has been a long term favorite of mine. I have shown the "Crows" sequence to most visitors at one time or another.
I especially like the added touch of genius in casting Scorsese as Van Gogh. :o)AuPh
About 1/2 of my guests guess it's him and the other half has no clue.
But it is brilliant casting since all Scorcese had to do was get made up!
In fact Bernardo, if you look at the list of Oscars, you will see his decline starting in the 70īs, when commerce took definitively overhand.
Have you seen " Pčre et Fils " ?Patrick
No, I havenīt seen "Pčre et fils": it hasnīt surfaced here...Regards
BF
1990. This was not one of those two. There were two occasions that they picked something that was at least in my top 5. Oddly people get on American Beauty which was one of them I think they got right. Perhaps because I could relate to Lester in a lot of ways - at least on the job market. It certainly was Atypical of what oscar usually lets win - so I'm a bit puzzled by the animosity it gets from people who think they know something about film as art.LOTR is more spectical than it is deep and social relevance or insight are often a real strain and stretch for writer's to argue. It simply is paper thin with an arc that doesn't house 9 hours. It's too long, too preachy, to distanced, too silly to be a masterpiece.
The other two 11 award winners are Ben Hur a horrendous pile of dog dung if there ever was for a best picture and the incredibly banal Titanic (Though I confess to enjoying Titanic if I imagine the dialogue a different way). Cameron needs to write women better because The Terminator was a vastly superior Romance picture.
LoTR is a masterpiece and destined to be a classic for generations to come, PERIOD, end of story! OTOH, I would agree that Ben Hur was far less deserving of it's 11 Oscars. However, I wouldn't go quite as far as you did in comparing it to "a horrendous pile of dog dung" even though I don't usually care for Old/New Testament religious epics and rarely have much use for Charlton Heston's square jawed acting. Titanic is another kettle of fish (i.e., literally ...now, I guess!); I liked it quite a bit better than you did, but I have to agree with you about Cameron creating and/or directing more effective romantic dialogue in other films. BTW, if you think that the romantic elements in The Terminator was better, check out the Abyss!AuPh
Titanic was in my best ten list that year and I gave it 8/10 - Which is high on my rating system. I enjoyed it, but it could have been something so much better.I maintain that the Terminator is Cameron's best romantic effort and have argued that the Terminator is centrally a romance wrapped up in a sci-fi thriller action film - which is why it's the best Terminator film...and a great film - though one does have to ignore the time line implausabilites - or our current knowledge of time...but that's sci-fi.
Star Wars is considered a classic too. What is or isn't considered a classic has no weight with me. Classics are dictated by popularity contests. The fans of these genres will like them and they're much better than fantasy films like Excalibur which was supposedly going to be a claassic when it came out...seriously horrible movie IMO.
Winning an academy award is no gaurantee of anything. Gladiator was dreck - and how many people hate the English Patient?
It all depends on the definition of masterpiece and what you go to the theaters for and only YOU can define what YOU consider a masterpiece to be.
I agree with what you posted about this masterpiece. It is so many films in one and makes you wonder at the end (forgetting, of course, Linda Hamilton's limited acting talent).
I think a longer director's cut of this on DVD will give more weight to all those below deck relationships only hinted at in the theatrical version.
It was a never-ending BORE.
The first one was 100 times better.
My wife and I, and EVERYONE we know in the area who saw RoTK were thrilled; those who had read the Tolkien trilogy were even more impressed having felt that Peter Jackson came very close to recreating Tolkien's literary ending without sacrificing necessary film pacing. BTW, in case you never read the trilogy, the final book is somewhat anti-climactic in the manner of the film. Had Peter Jackson omitted those sequences fans of the books would have been outraged. Some folks apparently have difficulty with the lengthy conclusion after the One Ring is cast into the fires of Mount Doom, and I respect that, but speaking for myself and those of us who enjoyed this series it wound down very nicely.Our opinions are apparently 180 degrees opposite in respect to RoTK.
AuPh
There's NO WAY a "sober" middle-aged person would go on a LOTR crusade otherwise.
I regretted wasting my magic herb on the experience.
nt
They'll go well with LOTR III.
Then again, any movie will...just ask Auph.:)
I figured that the only way you guys could get through some of the boring Grey Poupon foreign-foo you rave on about was through prolonged herbal consumption. Now I'm back to square one and in need of a new theory! ;^)AuPh
No sense of wonder; no imagination; no fun. Tsk, tsk, ...too bad. BTW, I'm not on a "crusade" for LoTR or anything else (i.e., except perhaps changing Administrations next November, but that's for another Board). OTOH, if I had to choose between sobriety and your mind-set, well, as a clever lyricist once put it: I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than to have a prefrontal lobotomy! ;^)AuPh
Well actually for having one, you must first start with a brain......These kind of things can not happen to you....Avec tout mon amour...
"I think it is in our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others." - Thomas Jefferson
Words . For the love of them.
Paleeze. Every time LOTR gets metioned you pop up like a teenage pimple.
Also, please do not mention your politics in this forum.
As far as politics are concerned, that was only mentioned in passing; you KNEW that of course, so puhleeeeeze, GET A GRIP (i.e., on reality, rather than your ....!).> > > "Every time LOTR gets mentioned you pop up like a teenage pimple." < < <
Have you looked in the mirror recently? ;^)
No offense, but if you don't like reading my entirely appropriate responses to the outrageous LoTR basher posts, then either a) don't open my replies, or better yet, b) don't POST the kind of ripostes that elicit some remark that hurts your feelings!
Regards,
AuPh
I must say that your propensity to unfunny humor is equaled only by your taste in films, which is just as well.So, gather your cartoon characters, grab some hobbit bread and go on living in your little county fair-quality world.
But please, please don't ever try to assemble a joke I might stumble upon!
I almost felt ashamed reading your last post, and I've read some lame stuff here and elsewhere.
...who rudely insult other's tastes in films and then get upset when it's thrown back at them.> > > "But please, please don't ever try to assemble a joke I might stumble upon!" < < <
And likewise, please try to learn the difference between sarcasm and jokes. Both apply humor, but the target(s) of the former will understandably be less amused with the results.
AuPh
I think that the " better episode " was in fact number two, a little long in the two third, but more enjoyable if I may say so.
If those two panned the movie, then of course the Academy hasn't a clue as to what constitutes award winning pictures, eh Audi? As far as the show last night goes, Robin Williams was at his best and the application of lyrics to the "your time is up" music by the Sat Night live guys was a high point for me. LOTR had to win all those categories as the competition obviously paled in comparison.One glaring oversight, or was it an intentional slight...not even a nomination for any category for Cruise. His role in The Last Samuri was deserving IMHO.
"I mean, Wings, fer God's sake!?!?!""Ben Hur" ?!?!?!
Look. All reviewers get tired of seing the same old tired ideas over and over again. And that is what major films do, especially in the US of A. We are, much to my shame, an anhistorical society. It is now even worse given that every rugrat in the country is brought up thinking his (or her) own "original" ideas (no matter that they are 20 centuries old) are stunningly original and they have a right to "shoot out their lips" no matter what the substance. And even worse given the profitability of sequals. I was hoping the disaster of the Matrix sequals mught have ended the trend. Sadly, LOTR indicates therer is yet more money there.
That makes it very easy to be fond of "out there", original and/or unknown films if one sees a lot of films.
Professional critics have courses available to them to help avoid the trap.
Victor and PatrickU have (obviously) not taken the course.
They also (equally obviously) have a bit of an "ownership attitude" about this asylum.
Whether I agree with them or not, these are different and refreshing attitudes and insights. As elitist as they can be, I would rather have their opinions than not have them. And I assuredly would not wish a Disney syncophant to hold sway in this asylum.
Of course, they will now reprimand me, saying they do not need my support (and they do not.) But they have it (and my disagreement sometimes) nevertheless.
" I was hoping than the disaster..." Did you really?
I donīt quite understand the of what " trap " you are speaking of. Elaborate please!
" Ownership attitude " yes...We really love movies, deeply and with all our capacities( y ? )
Elitist? well if eating better food than Mc. Donald is, then we are.
Of course we are not! We try to partage our experience and knowledge without arrogance, and if sometimes they may have traces of it, our will and patience to explain show the real face of our spirit. And we refresh and learn a lot from almost everybody here.
" Reprimand " there, there, we ainīt no school teachers...We are more the one than cries out loud " burn the school down ". Adopting to view films ( or else ) from a different point of view, that is what intelligence is all about.
Vive la difference!
;^)
LOTR is in good company, congratulations!
This is more fitting company for LOTR, although I would group "American Beauty" just below my choices for the worst Best Picture Oscar winners.
Yes.
;^)
... if I ever hear about a Roger Corman Film Festival opening somewhere in the country. ;^)AuPh
Don't bother Auph.
He's probably rubbing his privates with a miniature oscar statue as we speak.
;^)
reward success. How could they not? Better to disgruntle connoiseurs than alienate the masses to whom the studios market--and do so every year through the Oscars.
Or could it be that the "connoiseurs" are such in their minds only. Film making excellence is not exclusive to the art houses, and in many cases said art houses run abominable offerings, which I suppose ultimately serve only to bolster the ego driven "connoiseur" palate.
Or could it be that the "connoiseurs" are such in their minds only. Film making excellence is not exclusive to the art houses, and in many cases said art houses run abominable offerings, which I suppose ultimately serve only to bolster the ego driven "connoiseur" palate.Point taken, but it doesn't affect mine. The Oscars are about promoting and rewarding the industry and its consumers, not the craft. There are happy moments when craft does get rewarded, and no doubt a good number of self-styled connoiseurs believe the success of the Return of the King to be one of them, but to think that the films' storied creation (unknown director, huge studio gamble made all the more daring for shooting the trilogy all at once, the long-term commitment and it seems now life-long "fellowship" of its cast, etc.) and its astonishing success beyond the expectations even of many of its most die-hard fans didn't play into the film's Oscar success I think is naive. If the film I thought to be the most artful of the year took Best Picture honors, I doubt I would feel my tastes confirmed or vindicated because I doubt the reasons for its selection would coincide with my own.
It would be interesting to know how many films have won best director and/or best actor honors while not receiving a single nomination for best actor/actress or best supporting actor/actress.
But I don't get your last statement. If you mean that LOTR garnered no acting nominees, then that is an oversight by the Academy, for Sir Ian McKellen put in a marvelous performance as Gandalf and has received no noteriety whatever. Still, he didn't sulk like a little boy, he was at the Awards in total support of the film and Jackson.I feel that many times the popularity of a film can work against it also, but I haven't taken the time to search for examples, though I'm sure they exist.
Which film would you have nominated for best film?
While I think McKellen is among the best living actors and therefore among the most underrecognized, he was working with a lot of foils in LoTR, or at least with a lot of actors foiled by stilted dialogue. He's turned out much better performances elsewhere for which he should have been recognized. As I recall he got a nomination for Gods and Monsters. Who beat him out that year?As for my nomination, I saw no clear standouts this year and have yet to see all the nominees ( 21 Grams and Monster , for example) and anyway have given up investing myself in the process. I will say, though, that I thought Kill Bill 's not even getting a nomination for Best Editing was criminal. That was one of the best edited films I've seen (and much to my surprise).
I thought Penn's performance in Mistic River was overstated (friends who've seen 21 Grams say he should have been nominated for that performance instead, but you honor Eastwood by honoring him for his performance in the former, and we know how desperate the Accademy is to honor unhonored favorites). I wonder if Philip Seymour Hoffman will ever get the recognition he deserves.
He was fantastic in " Gods and Monster ". A brillant performance.
then they'll all be happy.Chris
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
