Best Picture: 2001

atomicage · Post by **atomicage** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:43 pm

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.

Post by **Uri** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:02 am

Gosford Park is indeed a great delight, the kind of movie I’m always drawn into whenever it's on TV. In the Bedroom is a respectable second. I was always amused by how emotionally invested some people here are when it come to A Beautiful Mind – a competently mediocre piece – which for some reason evokes an amount of detestation and hatred that really should be saved for more worthy causes. Watching Moulin Rouge is like accidentally getting into an amateur theatre when you don’t know or care for any of the people involved with the production they are having. As for The Fellowship of the Ring – it’s three hours of meaningless buzz which doesn’t amount to anything which is emotionally, intellectually, ideologically or spiritually profound or even mildly entertaining. For me, that is. Only for me. And, being a devoted Oscar watcher, I set through three of them.

If I’m not wrong, in your lists of alternative candidates, none of you mentioned my favorite American movie of that year, The Man Who Wasn’t There. It is not even mentioned on the No Country for Old Men thread. It seems like it’s simply ignored. I found it to be a fascinating dissertation dealing with the darkest aspects of the American psyche. The notion that as a nation, the Americans are still in their latency period was rarely so shrewdly conveyed on film. And it’s stunningly looking with some really great performances. I would say a masterpiece, but it’s a term I never use.

Edited By Uri on 1195902291

Akash · Post by **Akash** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:58 pm

It's either In the Bedroom or Gosford Park and I voted for Altman's beauty. I also liked Fellowship and Moulin Rouge though. The lineup would have been one of the best ever if they had replaced the only lousy film -- and eventual winner -- with ANY of the other great films on Oscar's radar that year: A.I., The Royal Tenenbaums, Mulholland Drive, Ghost World, Monsters Inc.

Edited By Akash on 1195862321

Post by **The Original BJ** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:27 pm

Some wonderful films here. I voted for The Fellowship of the Ring by a hair over Gosford Park and In the Bedroom. In the Bedroom is a powerful chamber drama, but can't match the technical dazzle of Altman and Jackson's epics. Gosford Park is a complete joy but slightly minor by Altman's standards. So Fellowship -- my favorite of the Rings films -- gets my vote for combining majestic sweep with intimate characterizations. It's a truly wonderful first chapter to a great film saga.

Moulin Rouge is a complete mess but such an astonishing high-wire act I can't believe it even got made. I give the Academy major points for recognizing such a singular aesthetic accomplishment, even if I wish they had rallied behind stuff like Mulholland Drive, Memento, A.I., The Royal Tenenbaums, or Ghost World instead.

Leave it to voters to pick by far the least ambitious and successful film of the bunch: A Beautiful Mind is well-acted but completely lifeless. A pathetic choice.

dreaMaker · Post by **dreaMaker** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:20 am

i think 2001 was one of most ''fruitful'' years...
So many great movies.. i can't pick just one of them...

LOTR was amazing, Moulin Rouge! was fantastic, Gosford Park ingenious, A Beautiful Mind wonderful...

Post by **Precious Doll** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:06 am

Sabin wrote:I like Nicole Kidman, but her double-whammy year was in 2004 for 'Birth' and 'Dogville'. She's terrific in 'The Others', but Lord knows not better than Naomi Watts, Thora Birch, Maggie Cheung, Charlotte Rampling, Tilda Swinton, or several under-the-radar beauties. I can't be the only one here who considers 'Ginger Snaps' one of the great genre films of the decade, and Emily Perkins' performance a thing of beauty?

I wouldn't call Ginger Snaps 'great' but it is neverthless impressive.

Post by **criddic3** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:26 am

Where are you going to post them criddic

Good question. I have already listed most of them in Oscar Shouldabeens, though I seem to have missed a few years. I'll have to check them and fill in the blanks. I doubt it would be fair for me to add a Criddics Award thread. hehe, I'd become a whole other precurser. :laugh:

Maybe I should buy some TV time... and invite movie stars to attend. hmmm... and the statuette would look like me...

Sabin · Post by **Sabin** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:14 pm

I like Nicole Kidman, but her double-whammy year was in 2004 for 'Birth' and 'Dogville'. She's terrific in 'The Others', but Lord knows not better than Naomi Watts, Thora Birch, Maggie Cheung, Charlotte Rampling, Tilda Swinton, or several under-the-radar beauties. I can't be the only one here who considers 'Ginger Snaps' one of the great genre films of the decade, and Emily Perkins' performance a thing of beauty?

dylanfan23 · Post by **dylanfan23** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:36 pm

yea they're both worth taking the time to watch...you could easily do it in one night, they're both rather short if i remember correctly. Two very different films...the deep end is a thriller about a mother trying to do what she thinks is right for her son...she gives a very good performance as the mom...very intense, without the performance the film wouldn't have had the intensity it needed....the business of strangers is a talky film about a female executive who lives a pretty sad life, not many friends ect....and on a trip where she finds out some important unexpected news she also develops a crazy friendship with the julia stiles character...this film didn't do much, but i really fell for these two characters...theres so much going on beneath the surface and these two characters pasts are important and are the reasons for they're actions, but you have to think about the characters...i love the film and its also worth seeing for julia stiles, who was equal to channing doing her best job to date.

And i completely agree with oscarguy...i did not like moulin rouge but i did appreciate her performance...but she was at the top of her game in a very interesting role in the others....i agree if she had to be nominated, it should have been for the others.

Post by **OscarGuy** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:17 pm

Kidman should have been nominated for The Others over Moulin Rouge. While I liked Moulin Rouge and her performance in it, I think she was far superior in The Others.

Post by **flipp525** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:42 pm

FilmFan720 wrote:I haven't seen Swinton or Channing's films...

You should. Two fantastic performances.

Post by **FilmFan720** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:40 pm

I haven't seen Swinton or Channing's films...

dylanfan23 · Post by **dylanfan23** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:51 pm

I guess what you feel about supporting actor is pretty much what i feel about actress that year....i thought broadbent was the best part of moulin rouge but that isn't enough(he is also a lead for me in iris) gandolfini and reiner give very nice performances in two films i actually liked very much, but not good enough either. Mckellen does a good job of course but the whole film didn't hit home with me...siatidis is one i completely forgot....great performance in a great film....tony shaloub just missed my list but he would have missed every year so far this decade for that performance...and thats the reason i say its weak is because there are five better performances in any other year this decade then two of my nominees(voight and bettany). And i would love to put one of the performances in royal tennenbaums or gosford park in there, i obviously love both films, but there isn't one that deserves to be there in the bunch of very good performances in those two films.

Now actress is just the opposite, there are two performances that didn't make my list(swinton and zellwegger) that would have made any other years list for me this decade...so thats where i'm coming from there. And i stand by those performances....stockard channing and thora birch both killed me watching those two sad characters. Spacek and watts were both outstanding in they're best roles...and we obviously disagree about berry...i thought she deserved her oscar...but i wouldn't have minded if either spacek or watts had gotten it either...hell, it would have been nice if watts got a nomination. I didn't like dench at all in iris, one note performance in my opinion....i found the younger iris much more interesting and both the younger and older husband far more interesting then the older iris. And kidman in the others was my 8th best performance that year.

Post by **FilmFan720** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:52 am

Whoa, just realized I don't have Watts on that list. She would be second in my book. Amazing performance.

Post by **FilmFan720** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:49 am

dylanfan, I actually think that 2001 is one of the best years of the decade for supporting actors. Buscemi is my winner, with fellow nominees Tony Shaloub for Man Who Wasn't There, Emilio Echevarria for Amores Perros, Jim Broadbent for Moulin Rouge (I have him as a lead for Iris) and Ian Holm for Lord of the Rings. On top of them, you have nomination-worthy performances by Ian McKellan, James Gandolfini in The Mexican, a slew of Royal Tenenbaums and Gosford Park actors, Georges Siatidis for No Man's Land, Carl Reiner in Ocean's Eleven, plus the other nominees you had listed, none of whom I particularly liked. I think this was the best lineup we have had in years.

Meanwhile, Actress this year was pretty sparse, in my opinion. Spacek deserved the award, then I would have nominated Kidman, Birch, Dench and Zellwegger. Outside of Spacek, none of those are performances I particularly love. Berry is an abomination, in my opinion.

Edited By FilmFan720 on 1165906325

Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

The internet's oldest Oscar discussion forum.

Best Picture: 2001

Best Picture: 2001