How did Franco not win best actor for this?
Topic
shareI don't get it either. This was better than that crap movie black swan.
Happen to fall off a cliff. Might as well try to fly.
MovieChat Forums > 127 Hours (2011) Discussion > How did Franco not win best actor for th...
That's why. It never struck me as an AA contender.
---
"Don't just DO something, STAND there!"
Pastor Charlie Bing
[deleted]
Yeah, your input was epic fail; think longer and try again please.
---
"Don't just DO something, STAND there!"
Pastor Charlie Bing
[deleted]
"The bible is a brilliant book, I'd rate it next to Lord of the Rings, etc."
What an enormous insult to Lord of the Rings! :)
The only comparison: both are fiction. share
James Franco should have won best actor. He is such a great actor! I know in the future he will win what he deserves.
shareimo Colin Firth deserved that Oscar, he wasn't jaw dropping like Daniel Day Lewis in There Will be Blood but he was better than the competition. As for best picture, Black Swan got robbed!
shareCompletely agree. Firth deserved the Best Actor award but Black Swan was the superior movie overall.
sharewell put
shareColin Firth had been nominated before, for A Single Man in 2010, and had been a working actor for 15 years more than Franco. I have no doubt James has the talent to get nominated again, probably several times, and hopefully someday he'll win. Jeff Bridges had been nominated for 4 Oscars (2 leading role, 2 supporting) before he won on his 5th nomination for Crazy Heart when he was 61. He was in his first movie, The Last Picture Show, when he was 21. But then there's Hillary Swank who's already won 2, so I guess all bets are off. At the rate he's going, maybe James win an Oscar for Best Director before he gets one for Best Actor.
share[deleted]
i thought he was very good, still preferred Firth though.
(gasps) Was I good? - Black Swan
Because the scene with him driving and looking seriously happy is... ridiculous, to say the least.
---
Very good, Louis. Short, but pointless.
Because the academy are a bunch of political hacks. Seriously, I don't care who won because they've snubbed way more excellence than they've recognized. Firth did a great job, but he was better in A Single Man. Franco did an amazing job, but he's young and probably has his best roles ahead of him, so they'll give it to him later and snub some other actor who will be more deserving of it that year.
It's the circle of ineptitude. In 1974, Al Pacino and Jack Nicholson gave the performances of their careers in The Godfather part II and Chinatown. Who'd they give it to that year? Art Carney for playing an old fart on a cross country trip with his cat in a movie called Harry and Tonto. Skipping Pacino in 1974 meant that come 1992, he was "due" so he got one for screaming a lot in Scent of a Woman. This, in turn screwed over Denzel Washington for Malcolm X, who then had to be given a make-up Oscar in 2001 for his role in Training Day.
It's hard to take them seriously when over half the movies that have proven themselves to be edgy, relevant and timeless have been completely omitted from the Oscars. Goodfellas, Saving Private Ryan, Pulp Fiction, Do the Right Thing, Dr. Strangelove, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Citizen Kane, the list goes on and on - were all snubbed by the all knowing academy.
Halftoncheeseburger, you make some good points, but Citizen Kane, Goodfellas and Pulp Fiction got one Oscar each, Raging Bull won two, and Saving Private Ryan got five. They may have not won every award that they deserved, but the majority of films don't even get nominated, so they were hardly snubbed.
shareHey, guys, guys, guys.
We all know who really won Best Actor, because we will never forget this epic film.
We have friends who like Colin Firth or what's-her-name, but when it really counts?
James Franco won, not only Best Actor for his agonizing portrayal, but also as many awards as we want to reward him with.
He's smart enough to know that his fans are smart enough to admire and reward him.
And, hey, champagne, for James Franco's win, at my house! I'm in Miami, but I'm sure you can find me!
Fiona
Science first! And information: also first!
Yes they have won Oscars, but writing and acting Oscars without winning the big one is still a snub when considering who they lost to. Doesn't matter if it pulled in 5 others, and I wouldn't care if they gave it to anyone else, 3 other great movies were nominated, but Hollywood politics nominated and gave 7 statues to Shakespeare in Love instead. I'm really not looking to get into a who deserves it more argument, but my point is the academy is corruptible, and hardly an authority when it comes to greatness.
shareI agree the Oscars do snub a lot of films that truly deserve them, but come on, Shakespeare in Love was a far superior film than Saving Private Ryan. It wasn't the best of 1998 (Happiness was, imo), but it deserved it more then SPR. Just my 2 cents, cheers.
Last Film Seen;
127 Hours
Danny Boyle
(2010)
It's the same when a few years ago that Philip Seymour Hoffman won for "Capote", the same year Jouaquin Phoenix was nominated for "Walk the Line" and David Strathairn was nominated for "Good Night and Good Luck." I saw all three movies and thought all three actors deserved the award. Personally, I was pulling for Jouaquin - he was phenomenal as Johnny Cash. Sometimes, there are years where the category is very difficult to choose one actor.
share@chicomary: learn to spell Joaquin
shareShakespeare in Love was better than Saving Private Ryan, are you serious? Dude, you need to get a life. Shakespeare in Love was pathetic, highly over-rated. There was nothing in it that stays with me. I kept looking for an excuse throughout the movie to remember it later, but I couldn't find one. And when I watched Saving Private Ryan, first 25 mins were more than enough to make the movie memorable.
shareDude, you need to get a life.
Really? What was the point of replying to my post and start it off with that? Didn't you want to be taken seriously? Oh well, I don't take it seriously but sure had a little smirk as I read it, thanks for the entertainment. I have to go now and get myself a life that includes having the exact same opinion as you, what a great life you must have. Cheers.
Last Film Seen;
Winter's Bone
Debra Granik
(2010, 8/10) share
I'm glad I entertained you, but guess what, thats exactly what Shakespeare in Love didn't do and thats why I ended up with such opinion which apparently you seem to like. By the way, movie might have sucked but your reply was spicy. Keep it up dude and you may finally get some attention you're desperately looking for. I have just started the flow for you. Cheers back :)
shareAttention? Really? It was just an opinion, I'm not saying SIL is better than SPR to get attention, I'm saying it because it is a better film.
Were you really not entertained by Shakespeare in Love? You must be one hard cookie.
Last Film Seen;
Tenebre
Dario Argento
(1982, 6/10)
Look man, no hard feelings. Just cheer up, alright. And I still stand by my opinion. If SIL was such a great movie then it wouldn't have had too many people gunning for it. It was definitely not an OSCAR material. SPR was one of the finest if not the finest war movie ever made, can you say the same about SIL for any genre; comedy, drama, period/history? Any Genre at all? No you can't. It never cut as one of the finest comedies, nor did it cut as one of the finest drama/period Films. Even the OSCAR nomination for Best Actress was pretty controversial which went to GP. You call that entertainment; well you must be one soft cookie.
The Oscars' jury never disappoints people who are looking for Bullsh*t. All Hail band of Mor*ns!!
Yes, I found it highly entertaining, however I actually agree with you on the fact that I also don't think it was Oscar material, and Cate Blanchett should have won the Oscar that year hands down. Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you may have a grudge against SIL for beating out SPR? But it's all a matter of opinion, which is what got us here in the first place. I still stand by that SPR was highly over-rated and does not stand up against any of the great war movies, however impressive the first 30 minutes was. Agree to disagree?
And Happiness was light years ahead of both films for 1998 anyway.... in my opinion.
:)
Last Film Seen;
Going the Distance
Nanette Burstein
(2010, 8/10)
It's easy for us to say this now, we're looking at it from the perspective of people living today and we know what films and performances stand the test of time. Generally though they cover most of the best films of the year, at least with nominations. Most of those films, if they didn't win anything big, at least got nominated in the big categories.
shareYou stole the words out of my mouth.
shareBecause Firth was doing a portrayel of a real life person, and the academy has a fetish for those kind of roles.
shareJames Franco was robbed he gave an amazing tour de force performance one of the greatest by any actor in the last 10 years. Think about how he skillfully played so many different emotions in such a confined space & tell me who else could have done any better??
"Because Firth was doing a portrayel of a real life person, and the academy has a fetish for those kind of roles."
Wait, what?
127 Hours is a biographical film, where James Franco portrays real-life climber Aron Ralston.
Crazy anaconda!
Pack your bags... we're going to Memphis.