MovieChat Forums > Filmhistorian
Filmhistorian (22)
Posts
Replies
IT SHOULD BE NOTED that just three years ago Sharon Stone accepted a 1, (one, uno), scene role in the film The Laundromat, a role that could have been played by any one of a thousand lesser-known character actresses, yet Stone accepted the role for the opportunity to have Meryl as a scene partner, so Sharon's as guilty as everyone else who's down on their fat white knees praising Ms. Streep's greatness.
If I were an actress with a range as limited as Stone's, I'd be a bit pissed at Meryl to.
Sharon Stone is always attacking someone. It's the only way she gets her name in the press these days.
I agree completely. It's up to individual interpretation as to what purpose it served, but it failed to achieve excellence in film making on any level.
I think you're absolutely correct and it was extremely sad in that there were other nominees so much more worthy of the awards that this film received.
Opposite here. I can't believe the Academy gave Dern, but not Alan Alda a nod, especially considering Dern played basically the same character earlier this year in Big Little Lies.
I found the 3 hour documentary fascinating, yet somehow feel a falsehood was being sold. I mean, there's been over 23,000 men to play in professional football, so by conservative numbers, at least a thousand were living in the closet and many suffered head traumas, and at least twenty percent of those were raised in abusive environments, yet none that we know were murders.
Point being, his career, fame and money probably contributed to an early incarceration and saved dozens of lives, for had he been a plumber, Hernandez would have operated as a sociopathic killer and murdered for years, if not decades before being caught.
That said, the documentary was focused entirely on finding reason for something where no reason exist.
I think the article greater demonstrates the frustration within certain sectors of the media with their inability to reduce the Academy Awards to the level of the People Choice, as they have successfully done with every other televised award.
As Ramin Setooden states in his article, this was his opinion which he backs with opinions of others on social media, which isn't a proven method of determining what's good of bad for anything.
The Academy voters are not impressed with one good performance and a tireless Oscar campaign after twenty years of box office groping garbage.
This was prevalent five years ago with Jennifer Aniston's performance in the film Cake. Good movie, (somewhat), very good performance and despite racking up nominations throughout the award season, Aniston's name wasn't called on the day Academy nominations were announced. That said, her lockout hardly proved to be bad for the Academy.
This has been the argument for decades, but it really doesn’t hole up to scrutiny anymore. It’s true that in the first seven years of her film career, three of her films went on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture, (The Deer Hunter, Kramer vs. Kramer & Out of Africa), however in the subsequent thirty-five years and fifteen Oscar nods, only one of her films achieved as much as a nomination for Best Picture, (The Hours), and as with majority of her films since 1985, Meryl’s performance garnered the only Oscar nomination the films received.
Point being, Meryl doesn’t really have the luxury of picking the great roles, but rather manages to get good roles in mediocre films and elevates the material.
Also, when people say the Oscars are meaningless, the fact is this translates to they don’t agree with the Academy’s choices, (that's fine, I don't always either), but in truth, there’s no one whose star is so big that they’re not clamoring for a front row seat when they’re nominated, including the richest man on the planet, (Jeffrey Bezos), when an Amazon production was nominated for Best Picture.
You're right.
View all replies >