MovieChat Forums > Heaven Can Wait (1978) Discussion > Nine Oscar nominations?

Nine Oscar nominations?

posted 18 years ago by spearsdw
30 replies | jump to latest

This is a pleasant enough movie, but, c'mon, is it really that good? I can understand the nom for Warden - it's a good performance - but the acting nods for Beatty and Cannon seem generous at best - Beatty is ok here, but nowhere near as exceptional as he was in Bonnie and Clyde, The Parallax View, or Shampoo and I just find Cannon shrill. There's nothing strikingly orginal or inventive in the direction and screenplay. And it got a Best Picture nomination and that same year's stunning, beautiful Days of Heaven didn't?

[–] johnyzero_2000 18 years ago

Fellow I'm still stumped as to how it won an Oscar for its art direction! The sets are ok but they're nothing to shout about let alone award worthy. That year Jack Fisk designed the sets for Days of Heaven and wasn't even nominated. The Oscar's selections have been pretty goofy for the most part.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BlondeVixen 17 years ago

Yes, I didn't think the movie was funny. I have't seen Here Comes Mr. Jordan in many years, but I remember it being better than this remake.

[–] RonnieHR 10 years ago

BlondeVixen; You didn't think this movie was funny? Surely you jest!

[–] freakaman24 17 years ago

I disagree- This movie is one of the most charming movies I have seen. It makes you smile and feel good, at least it did for me, and sometimes that is harder to accomplish considering alot of these types of movies fail to do so. Compared to Deer Hunter or Coming Home ( other nominees in that year) it seems light and fluffy, but it was done perfectly. You are right about Jack Warden who was hilarious and touching as Beatty's trainor and friend. I always felt bad for his character in the end, but Dyan Cannon is a riot , along with Charles Grodin. Her facial expressions are above reproach.

[–] brefane 17 years ago

1978 must have been a weak year. The direction is slack, the story plodding and confusing. It seems to be a Warren Beatty vanity production. He isn't convincing as a pro fotball player and he and Christie don't jell as a couple. Christie's hairdo looks awful, Cannon becomes shrill and the whole production is much ado about nothing.

[–] don-lockwood 16 years ago

"he and Christie don't jell as a couple."

Well, they must have gelled for the decade they dated in real life!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joependleton78 11 years ago

The direction, in my opinion, is right on target. First of all, the performances are ALL great and you have to credit the directors to a large degree for that. Plus,
there isn't a wasted scene or moment in the film. The direction and screenplay are efficient, to say the least. As for confusing, I can't help you there. I was able to follow it perfectly when I first saw it and I was 11 years old. As far as criticizing an actress's hairdo in an effort to prove your argument about the film...REALLY???

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rudeboy_murray 17 years ago

They do love director-star vanity movies - look at the seven nominations for Barbra Streisand's The Prince of Tides, a truly terrible film, much more so than Heaven Can Wait.

I think the best performance by far in Beatty's film was by Charle Grodin, who was overlooked for the forgettable Jack Warden. And I agree with the above poster on the art direction - one of the most inexplicable oscar wins, nothing about the work there justifies the win and it's not even showy or obvious work, which would at least partially explain it.

[–] xmonn 17 years ago

In my opinion, this is one of the finest romantic comedies ever made. Every Oscar nomination was well-deserved, and it should have won more awards. I watch it twice a year and like it more every time I see it. Considering how totally jaded I am, that's saying a bunch.

[–] voldelt 16 years ago

I totally agree with xmonn. I saw this movie when I was a kid and it has remained one of my all time favorites.

[–] Death_to_Pan_and_Scan 16 years ago

It's a pretty good movie hurt slightly by a goofy last act, but it didn't deserve all those nominations, especially the shot at Best Picture. It could've been worse...it could've been as bland as another BP nominee not so many years later: The Big Chill, a bland movie with a good cast and catchy soundtrack that's embraced by a certain portion of the population that sees themselves in it. Then again, the awful Mamma Mia! was a big box office hit this year, so go figure on the public's taste in movies...

----------
"It's such a sadness that you think you've seen a film on your *beep* ing telephone. Get real."

[–] sehenley 16 years ago

I just watched this movie for the first time; I'd always heard how great it was. But I'm sorry, this movie was just stupid! The only reason I can fathom as to why it got a slew of Oscar noms is that the Academy freakin' LOVES Warren Beatty. What a waste of time this thing was.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] okwong-e 16 years ago

Yeah Beatty was one of Hollywood's Golden Boys back in the day alongside Robert Redford(the Oscar victories of ORDINARY PEOPLE over RAGING BULL and THE ELEPHANT MAN for example).

[–] netshopper-2 16 years ago

1. Dyan Cannon was awful in this, oscar nom in mind blowing
2. Julie Christie's hair may look odd now but in the day, it sparked a trend of bowl shaped perms that rolled for several years until around 1982 as I recall.
3. I liked the art direction

[–] okeydokeykaraoke 15 years ago

saw this today and it's a pleasant enough film and it made me laugh a little. it's also a good looking film (i suppose that's why it won the oscar), but 9 oscar nominations? you must be kidding me... i gave it 7/10 which i think is very fair because it's a fun movie that doesn't really have much to say for itself.

given that this movie was made during the finest era of hollywood film (imo), it amazes me that this movie could earn 9 oscar nominations.

[–] pwc-5 13 years ago

Add me to the list of surprised viewers. It was entertaining and had a great cast, but I'm stunned that it got nine nominations (and this from someone who really likes Beatty, Christie, Grodin and Warden - whose nomination was earned, I think).

It came out when I was in elementary school and I remember it being hugely popular; so much so that the poster is permanently burned into memory.

[–] wintercobra 13 years ago

Personally I thought it was a great funny film, but yea how did this film get 9 oscar nods? I remember hearing that this film was very popular when it came out. My guess is that everyone thought it was really really good when it first was released and it has just aged a bit over the years.

[–] sirjeremy 13 years ago

Yes, agree. The Academy went way overboard with this film though I can understand it as I assume Paramount did a blinding job with their campaign and the film was a big hit. Personally I wouldn't nominate it for anything and Cannon's nomination in particular was ridiculous. So glad she didn't win.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]