2008 Academy Awards

I've tried to make it a habit to see as many BP nominees as I can every year. Since 2001, I've seen four or all five of the nominees (didn't see Erin Brockovich or Chocolat in 2000).

I've seen only two this year so far, but I plan on seeing There Will Be Blood and Michael Clayton as soon as possible. For some reason, I just have no desire to see Atonement.
 
I think the Oscar crop is much better this year than it was last year. Last year was very disappointing, with no truly great nominations and one massively overrated winner. So was 2005, where the only really impressive entry, MUNICH, was ignored.

Actually, I thought Munich was the second-to-least most impressive movie nominated that year, with Capote taking the number one slot (great performances doesn't necessarily qualify a movie as Best Picture material, imo).

I wasn't a big fan of Crash. I thought it was over-hyped, and that it tried too hard to get attention (looks like it paid off).

Good Night and Good Luck was great all around.

Brokeback Mountain was a good directorial effort, and well-acted. Was it worthy of best picture? I'm not so sure. But I do know that it left the greatest resounding effect on me after I left the theater.

Munich was a good movie, but it was about twenty minutes too long. Of all of Spielberg's movies, I thought it was one of his most forgettable.
 
I've seen only two this year so far, but I plan on seeing There Will Be Blood and Michael Clayton as soon as possible. For some reason, I just have no desire to see Atonement.

There Will Be Blood is one of the best-acted movies this decade, and DDL's performance is absolutely riveting. I've seen three of the five nominated performances (DDL, Depp, and Clooney), and I can easily say that DDL leaves the others straggling in the dust.

Atonement is another example of one of those movies which has been over-hyped during the pre-awards season. I think it's that reason alone why I don't want to see it in theaters, whereas I saw There Will Be Blood-- which was getting some recognition beforehand, but mostly for DDL's performance-- not expecting anything spectacular. There Will Be Blood became my favorite movie of the year as a result.
 
Munich was a good movie, but it was about twenty minutes too long. Of all of Spielberg's movies, I thought it was one of his most forgettable.
I think it was one of Spielberg's finest, honestly, and one of his most powerful. It certainly puts to shame the largely unimpressive, lackluster material he's put out since 1993's SCHINDLER'S LIST.
 
Has Spielberg done anything as of late? The Terminal from what I heard was dreadful... A.I was bad... Catch me if you Can... never seen it... Minority Report... never saw it in its entirety believe it or not but that was probably his best recent effort... WoW was not impressive IMO...
 
I can't be bothered to write out a long post right now but with all due respect I'll just say that if you take Agentsands opinion and reverse it then you have mine pretty much. :yay:

Except for his view on "There will be blood" I have no view on that movie except Ive watched the trailer 3 times and other than the cinematography i have no urge to see it.

I also pretty much disagree with tonie's last post as well.
 
I also pretty much disagree with tonie's last post as well.

I never get people just saying "I disagree" without saying why? If you are too lazy to respond or don't have the time or patience just don't respond... or at least say I liked those particular Spielberg films... compared to his track record... I expect more from that director and have not been impressed with his recent movies.
 
The awards are too far off, I can't take this waiting.
What will I wear? :rolleyes:
 
I never get people just saying "I disagree" without saying why? If you are too lazy to respond or don't have the time or patience just don't respond... or at least say I liked those particular Spielberg films... compared to his track record... I expect more from that director and have not been impressed with his recent movies.

Read Agentsands post and then reverse, i just said that in the very post you quoted. :huh:
 
I can't be bothered to write out a long post right now but with all due respect I'll just say that if you take Agentsands opinion and reverse it then you have mine pretty much. :yay:

Except for his view on "There will be blood" I have no view on that movie except Ive watched the trailer 3 times and other than the cinematography i have no urge to see it.

I also pretty much disagree with tonie's last post as well.

Dude, see it. It is awesome. Daniel Day-Lewis was amazing in it.
 
"Atonement" got screwed because of its marketing campaign. it's not the typical British period-piece. it's not even completely a romance film. even if you wait for cable, "Atonement" is worth your time.

if you like like all-around good films, then you owe it to yourself to see "There Will Be Blood" in theatres.
 
It's nice to see that the shows is actually going on. And they got a good line up of presenters, too :up:
 
Well I don’t think the three best pictures of the year were not nominated, but that’s not the point of this thread.

Best picture: Of the nominees for best picture, my list of favorite goes:

1. Juno
2. There Will Be Blood
3. Atonement
4. Michael Clayton
5. No Country for Old Men

BUT HOW IT WILL GO DOWN:

Best Picture: The vastly overrated No Country for Old Men, will win.

Best Director: So many great works and names ignored. Reitman being up here is strange. I disagree. While I loved Juno, it was the culmination of many ingredients of small stature coming together to make the perfect brew. While that is what a director is supposed to do, its visual narrative and auteur stamp are too small for him to deserve the win, and his name is not well known enough to win. Gilroy being nominted is odd. Anderson deserves the win, but:

Who will win: Coens.

Best Actor: DDL is simply phenomenal in everything, but as Daniel Plainview he really outdoes himself. To say he deserves the Oscar is an understatement. With that said if it were not for Lewis, I think this should be Viggo Mortenson’s year, as his criminally underrated performance in Eastern Promises is mezmorizing, unflinching and best of all authentic. But he would never win. If not for Lewis, this would go to Clooney. Clooney is a good movie star who turns his image on his head and is quite good in the role of the understated Clayton. But he is surrounded by such a compelling cast, script and direction it lifts up his performance beyond what it should be considered as. Depp was really good as well, but he and Burton are notoriously hated (okay, maybe just Burton) by the Academy. I’m surprised something so unconventional was even nominated. I also think that Tommy Lee Jones being nominated over James MacAvoy in Atonement is ridiculous.

Who will win: The much deserving Daniel Day Lewis

Best Actress: I haven’t seen but two of these, so I cannot fairly comment, but I liked Page a lot. However, I do not think it was the Oscar winning role. I have to add though that Blanchett being nominated for the melodramatic trite that was Elizabeth “2” shows nothing but the Academy’s love for Blanchett, period dramas and under the table bribes from Miramax.

Who will win: Julie Christie.

Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem deserves the win. But what an amazing category this year. Casey Affleck was simply unforgettable and awe inspiring in The Assassination of Jesse James. Bardem barely edges him out. Tom Wilkenson was equally impressive as the scene stealing lawyer who flipped his lid and had a moment of conscious clarity in Michael Clayton. As good as Hoffman is in Charlie Wilson’s War I’m not sure he deserved the nomination over Paul Dano’s very underrated turn in TWBB. Hal Hallbrook was good in Into the Wild and extremely touching. He stands the most likely to upset Bardem, but it would be a career achievement vote over who clearly deserves this.

Who will win: Javier Bardem.

Best Supporting Actress: I really liked Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone. I think she really earned this. But Cate Blanchett could easily upset her as Bob Dylan. While I think she was quite good the casting and subsequent praise is over novelty more than anything (IMO), but I know the Academy sure loves novelty. Both the little girl in Atonement and Tilda Swinson were memorable and striking in how they went from sympathy to hatable in their movies (tragically in the former’s case). Ruby Dee was very good in her strong small role in American Gangster, but she has no chance of winning and this is a career achievement nomination. Good to see the recognition though.

Who will win: Amy Ryan, I hope.

Best Screenplay original: This is where I’d choose to award Michael Clayton. It was extremely well written and very intelligent and I think soars most from this aspect. But I think Juno’s hype will get it the win here and only here (unfortunately on both counts).

Best Screenplay adapted: Atonement should win this and I think probably will. There Will Be Blood is so smally based on previous material I don’t think it deserves the win. Though this could be the place where the Academy boringly and wrongingly chooses to continue to flaunt the Coens worship they adore so much.

Best Cinematography: The Assassination of Jesse James hands down deserves this win by a landslide as far as I’m concerned. With that said, I KNOW No Country for Old Men will win it.

Best Editing: Into the Wild or There Will Be Blood, both deserve it.

Best Set Design: Probably the only place Sweeney Todd will be acknowledged.

Best Costume Design: Sweeney Todd should win, but Atonement will. Which is okay. I could see the Academy’s love for period pieces, particularly those set in Elizabethan or Tudors times letting the gaudy Elizabeth sequel be the winner.

Best Score: Atonement will and should win (TWBB not being nominated here, really shocks me).
 
P.S. In past years I have rarely agreed with the Academy's decision. I agree with The Departed last year, but last year was really weak (though I did enjoy Little Miss Sunshine and Pan's Labrynth was the best picture of that year). In 2005 all nominees (and many that were not nominated) for B.P. were better than Crash. That includes Capote, Munich, Goodnight and Good Luck and Brokeback Mountain. WTF was Syriana? With that said I think Goodnight or Munich should have won. In 2004 seeing Million Dollar Baby beat both The Aviator and Sideways was a joke. Go back further and you have Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan and Titanic over LA Confidential, etc.

The Academy doesn't pick the best picture of the year or even its nominess. It picks the best studio campaign.
 
Atonement had some damn good editing, superb really.
 
I'm going to make a crazy prediction. Depp takes best actor.

Clooney and Lewis split enough votes to cancel each other out which allows Depp to backdoor it.
 
I'm hoping Atonement may be able to pick up a few upset awards. I liked it a heck of a lot more then the overrated (IMO) Juno.
 
yeah, I liked Atonement also. I also like Juno. But overall, I don't really care for the awards this year. There's no one movie which I would absolutely want to win. I'll watch for Jon Stewart though since he's the host.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"