| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Oscar Nominations are up |
| 2005-01-25 |
| Passion of the Christ received 3 minor nominations, no surprise. No nominations at all for F911, which is a surprise. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #18 What I cannot fathom is how they left out the Best Actor nomination for Caviezel in POTC. Clint Eastwood - MILLION DOLLAR BABY? I like Clint Eastwood, and I've seen the film, but I'm sorry, his job there is nto nearly as good as he has done before, much less better than Caviezel. I don't know how anyone could rate that above POTC in terms of acting performance. Then again, you have things like the travesty (last year?) of Sean Penn robbing Bill Murray of an oscar he very much deserved. And the movie itself certainly should have been nominated for best foreign language motion picture at a minimum - it certainly was not in English. Anyway, IMHO Don Cheadle deserves the best actor, even if Caviezel had been nominated. But the best acting job all this year in film that I have seen was Jeffrey Rush in "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" - which HBO stupidly did not release into movie theaters here although it did so to good crowds and super reviews overseas. All that, and Gibson shoudl certainly have gotten at least a nomination for POTC - this was every bit as much an acheivement as Braveheart or Hamlet for Gibson as a director, especially compared to the drab competition. TO take that many chances in cinema (aramaic, latin, the bloodiness of the whoel thing, the challenege of characterizing all those historical figures from Christ to Pontious Pilate) - and to pull it off as a work of cinema verite - that speacks ofd a great directorial acheivement. The Academy and its liberal and anti-Christian bias (or fear of being percieved as pro-Christian in some cases) has never been more evident than this year - thier lack of guts to even NOMINATE POTC in any of the main categories shows quite clearly tht Hollywood does philosophically piss on the Flyover country (the Red States) that feeds them. Maybe its time to make them pay the price somehow. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-25 12:45:10 PM |
| #17 What I cannot fathom is how they left out the Best Actor nomination for Caviezel in POTC. Clint Eastwood - MILLION DOLLAR BABY? I like Clint Eastwood, and I've seen the film, but I'm sorry, his job there is nto nearly as good as he has done before, much less better than Caviezel. I don't know how anyone could rate that above POTC in terms of acting performance. Then again, you have things like the travesty (last year?) of Sean Penn robbing Bill Murray of an oscar he very much deserved. And the movie itself certainly should have been nominated for best foreign language motion picture at a minimum - it certainly was not in English. Anyway, IMHO Don Cheadle deserves the best actor, even if Caviezel had been nominated. But the best acting job all this year in film that I have seen was Jeffrey Rush in "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" - which HBO stupidly did not release into movie theaters here although it did so to good crowds and super reviews overseas. All that, and Gibson shoudl certainly have gotten at least a nomination for POTC - this was every bit as much an acheivement as Braveheart or Hamlet for Gibson as a director, especially compared to the drab competition. TO take that many chances in cinema (aramaic, latin, the bloodiness of the whoel thing, the challenege of characterizing all those historical figures from Christ to Pontious Pilate) - and to pull it off as a work of cinema verite - that speacks ofd a great directorial acheivement. The Academy and its liberal and anti-Christian bias (or fear of being percieved as pro-Christian in some cases) has never been more evident than this year - thier lack of guts to even NOMINATE POTC in any of the main categories shows quite clearly tht Hollywood does philosophically piss on the Flyover country (the Red States) that feeds them. Maybe its time to make them pay the price somehow. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-25 12:45:10 PM |
| #16 POTC probably didnt get any major ones simply because Gibson went outside 'hollywood' to make it. I'm surpised they didn't nominate Berg's execution for best foreign film..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-01-25 9:41:26 PM |
| #15 Sadly, the Film Actors' Guild got its revenge. TA:WP was shut out; I'm So Ronery and The End of an Act weren't given Best Song nominations. |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2005-01-25 9:32:44 PM |
| #14 The Academy and its liberal and anti-Christian bias (or fear of being percieved as pro-Christian in some cases) has never been more evident than this year... Maybe its time to make them pay the price somehow. Gerard Vanderleun (American Digest) sumrises that F911 didn't get any nominations was because the Academy and Hollywood were fearful of "paying the price". Besides the industry's institutional bias, I suspect that POTC didn't get any major nominations because Hollywood wanted to avoid giving the impression that it was 'pandering' or had caved in. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-01-25 9:15:01 PM |
| #13 I haven't seen any of the 'top honors' movies! I saw Shrek 2 but the others are mystery to me. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-01-25 4:18:15 PM |
| #12 "No nominations at all for F911..." I demand a recount. F911 voters repeatedly broke fingernails trying to cast their ballots. Karl Rove stole the election. Diebold rigged the voting machines. My ideas can't fit inside their ballot boxes. |
| Posted by: Michael Moore 2005-01-25 2:21:00 PM |
| #11 What I cannot fathom is how they left out the Best Actor nomination for Caviezel in POTC. Clint Eastwood - MILLION DOLLAR BABY? I like Clint Eastwood, and I've seen the film, but I'm sorry, his job there is nto nearly as good as he has done before, much less better than Caviezel. I don't know how anyone could rate that above POTC in terms of acting performance. Then again, you have things like the travesty (last year?) of Sean Penn robbing Bill Murray of an oscar he very much deserved. And the movie itself certainly should have been nominated for best foreign language motion picture at a minimum - it certainly was not in English. Anyway, IMHO Don Cheadle deserves the best actor, even if Caviezel had been nominated. But the best acting job all this year in film that I have seen was Jeffrey Rush in "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" - which HBO stupidly did not release into movie theaters here although it did so to good crowds and super reviews overseas. All that, and Gibson shoudl certainly have gotten at least a nomination for POTC - this was every bit as much an acheivement as Braveheart or Hamlet for Gibson as a director, especially compared to the drab competition. TO take that many chances in cinema (aramaic, latin, the bloodiness of the whoel thing, the challenege of characterizing all those historical figures from Christ to Pontious Pilate) - and to pull it off as a work of cinema verite - that speacks ofd a great directorial acheivement. The Academy and its liberal and anti-Christian bias (or fear of being percieved as pro-Christian in some cases) has never been more evident than this year - thier lack of guts to even NOMINATE POTC in any of the main categories shows quite clearly tht Hollywood does philosophically piss on the Flyover country (the Red States) that feeds them. Maybe its time to make them pay the price somehow. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-25 12:45:10 PM |
| #10 ..and the fat SOB had the nerve at the GLobes to say he dedicated it to the troops which he trashed in F911. But the left never did get the miltary, never will. |
| Posted by: Bill Nelson 2005-01-25 12:43:19 PM |
| #9 smn - a documentary? lies, edited fraud, qualifying as a documentary, huh? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-25 12:38:10 PM |
| #8 The Oscars, as always is a politically correct responce to national events. The Passion Of The Christ should have been nominated for best picture; best foreign language film; and best actor for Jim Cavezal! Michael Moore's F911 should have been nominated for best documentary...a child could see through all this hypocrisy! |
| Posted by: smn 2005-01-25 12:28:45 PM |
| #7 Hollywood's left-libs have figured out that Moore and his agitprop were a key factor in Bush's re-election. |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-25 11:57:26 AM |
| #6 Agreed - Best two films last year was Passion of the Christ and the Incredibles. Great Movies. |
| Posted by: PoopOnMyFace 2005-01-25 11:53:18 AM |
| #5 The two best movies of last year (The Passion of the Christ and The Incredibles, IMNTBHO) were too politically incorrect to be nominated for Best Picture. OTOH, good to see the Moore expelled from consideration. |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-01-25 10:26:39 AM |
| #4 Good lord, an unbroken sweep! I haven't seen a bloody one of any of the nominated pics!! I'm not even sure if some of them even showed in theaters here in San Antonio... |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2005-01-25 10:04:04 AM |
| #3 Surprise? IIRC the Oscar telecast the last couple of years has been dropping faster than a 500 lb bomb in terms of viewership. Its becoming the tar baby of prime time programming. How can you have a "Hey look at me, I'm so beautiful/important" moment when most channels are turned to re-runs in most American homes. If your industry is based upon bringing the people to the show, you don't do it by flashing the customers the finger. If you want to send a message, use Western Union. Calling Mr. Stone, Calling Mr. Stone. |
| Posted by: Don 2005-01-25 9:50:40 AM |
| #2 Works for me... |
| Posted by: Fred 2005-01-25 9:18:23 AM |
| #1 Unbroken link, please? |
| Posted by: Steve from Relto 2005-01-25 9:01:39 AM |