Page 2 of 6

Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:10 pm
by Hustler
VanHelsing wrote:Thanks Italiano. Just wondering, is Nine your most favorite film of last year?

Sabin, I guess it means you're a little bit slow, nah? And totally looooooove the creepiness part.

And since Bog has summoned me, please allow me to say this: Academy Award Nominee SANDRA BULLOCK

Sweeeeeeet! Christmas couldn't come any sooner. Yeah baby! :laugh:
Van Helsing, you have predicted in the other thread Gabourey Sidibe for best actress and Runner Up, Carey Mulligan. How does it come? What about your Sandra? Don´t you think she´s going to win?

Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:03 pm
by Hustler
The point is I´ll have to wait till March the 18th to watch The Blind Side due to schedule release dates, so I can´t express an opinion regarding the film. Anyway, I still mantain the hope in seeing Meryl winning for the third time.

Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:32 am
by ITALIANO
VanHelsing wrote:Thanks Italiano. Just wondering, is Nine your most favorite film of last year?
Well, no... I don't think it can be anyone's favorite film of last year.

Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:55 am
by VanHelsing
Thanks Italiano. Just wondering, is Nine your most favorite film of last year?

Sabin, I guess it means you're a little bit slow, nah? And totally looooooove the creepiness part.

And since Bog has summoned me, please allow me to say this: Academy Award Nominee SANDRA BULLOCK

Sweeeeeeet! Christmas couldn't come any sooner. Yeah baby! :laugh:




Edited By VanHelsing on 1267286270

Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:11 am
by Big Magilla
Well that proves my point doesn't it? You thought she was quite good even though excellence of performance was not the main criteria.

I hate stomping on Sandra Bullock and The Blind Side. I really do. I like her and I like her in the film, though I would hardly call what she does great acting. The thing is I don't think anyone else does either. That's the conundrum.

Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:39 am
by Reza
Big Magilla wrote:With Elizabeth Taylor's first win, I don't know what it was, but there are people on this board who swear it was for more than her tracheotomy.
It was the tracheotomy, being in the headlines constantly for the past 3 years or so, her fourth straight nod (without winning) and playing a hooker (life imitating art??.....although she claimed to have married all the men she had affairs with). Anyway it was her time to win..........as in many other cases the actual performance had nothing whatsoever to do with the win itself. I personally think she wasn't all that bad at all........the film was crap........but she was quite good. Maybe I need to re-visit the film.

I would have voted for Melina Mercouri that year.

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:16 pm
by Big Magilla
True, but aside from Mary Pickford in Coquette I don't think there's ever been a Best Actress winner that didn't have a group of supporters who actually thought the winner gave an award worthy performance.

With Ginger Rogers, it was she epitomized the working girl. With Loretta Young, it was she did a flawless accent in a role intended for Ingrid Bergman. With Elizabeth Taylor's first win, I don't know what it was, but there are people on this board who swear it was for more than her tracheotomy.

Bullock's performance is competent, even touching at times, but I haven't heard, read or seen anyone say she should win because she gave the year's best performance - if she wins she will the first to do so purely on off screen charisma and respect within the industry since Pickford eighty years ago.

Maybe Sean Penn will pull one of his no-shows and they can get Ben Stiller to do double duty and present Best Actress instead.




Edited By Big Magilla on 1267244252

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:32 pm
by Damien
Big Magilla wrote:MacGraw was nominated because she was the "darling of the moment" but when the majority of the voters sat down to place a check mark next to the name of one of the names they just couldn't place it next to hers.

The same thing should apply to Bullock - great gal, charming actress whose films bring in lots of money, but does she really deserve an Oscar based on her performance?
No, she doesn't, but if excellence of performance was the primary criterion, the list of Oscar winners would look a lot different,

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:16 pm
by Sabin
OMG! For whatever reason, I haven't noticed that Van Helsing's Sandra Bullock avatar blinks until right now! God, it's creepy!

...and yet, the range of emotion displayed is so uncannily similar to real life!

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:47 pm
by Big Magilla
criddic3 wrote:
That she failed to score suggested to me there (thankfully) was a level below which Oscar voters wouldn't go.
Why nominate them if they are so terribly below their standards? Maybe the reality is that a different sentiment took over and they chose someone else. Or maybe the margin of victory was small. It may not have been that Academy voters were so appalled at giving McGraw an award.
MacGraw was nominated because she was the "darling of the moment" but when the majority of the voters sat down to place a check mark next to the name of one of the names they just couldn't place it next to hers.

The same thing should apply to Bullock - great gal, charming actress whose films bring in lots of money, but does she really deserve an Oscar based on her performance?

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:35 pm
by criddic3
That she failed to score suggested to me there (thankfully) was a level below which Oscar voters wouldn't go.


Why nominate them if they are so terribly below their standards? Maybe the reality is that a different sentiment took over and they chose someone else. Or maybe the margin of victory was small. It may not have been that Academy voters were so appalled at giving McGraw an award.

I think Bullock is in front-runner status partly because of her appeal. She is well-liked. And the surprise factor of her nomination is something Academy voters may respond to. I think someone said something similar earlier about the actors branch identifying with her struggles as an actress. The "fairy tale" aspect of it may be what drives her win, even though she has been a star for many years now.

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:31 am
by Eric
That's funny. My Lutheran upbringing is, more and more, compelling me to shut the hell up.

Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:50 am
by ITALIANO
Like during the Witch Hunt, I won't name names, but no, it wasn't Van Helsing. Anyway, it's in the past, and my Catholic upbringing forces me to forgive, and go on with our lives and this divisive Oscar season ;)

Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:46 am
by VanHelsing
Bog, what's your problem?

And for the record, I did not send that PM. ITALIANO, you'd better clear my name.

:angry:

Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:51 am
by Bog
ITALIANO wrote:Not just glimpse actually - I got a very direct private message threatening me to be exhiled forever if I go on trashing this movie
This sounds a little too nuts....but maybe just nuts enough to have been Van Helsing...my God where has he gone??

I can only imagine how much more excruciating this whole process would have been had he stuck around...my thoughts go out to the members of the board where he's now focused his otherworldly Sandra obsession...