2018 Films and Oscars - Movies & TV - Forums : Best Ever Albums

badseed

Gender: Male
Age: 35
Location: FL

Hayden wrote:

Keeping in mind Joaquin Phoenix somehow doesn't have an Oscar, his snub for Her tops my list. It's a bizarre oversight considering the other noms the film got... looking back, it seems like a no-brainer for him to have won it.

Really? I've heard loads of people argue that DiCaprio should have won that year. Haven't heard as much for Phoenix, then again his lack of nomination may be why. 2013 was a ridiculous year for lead actors if I remember correctly. Not that the nominees were bad, just that there were so many great performances that a lot of good ones got snubbed. I still stick by Chiwetel Ejiofor personally.

StreetSpirit wrote:

Don't forget Joaquin Phoenix has talked shit on Oscars. That's why he didn't get nominated for Her, and will probably not be nominated ever again. But that hasn't ended his career, as directors still love working with Phoenix. Good for him.

He did, but don't forget he was nominated the previous year for The Master, so they obviously don't care if he hates them. How many times has Spike Lee talked bad about the academy? He's nominated this year.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

badseed wrote:

Really? I've heard loads of people argue that DiCaprio should have won that year. Haven't heard as much for Phoenix, then again his lack of nomination may be why. 2013 was a ridiculous year for lead actors if I remember correctly. Not that the nominees were bad, just that there were so many great performances that a lot of good ones got snubbed. I still stick by Chiwetel Ejiofor personally.

Phoneix's snub definitely kept consideration down, but keep in mind the entire world was gunning for DiCaprio to win an Oscar Laughing

He got it eventually though, so it's all good. Plus, out of the 'snubbed' actors that year, Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips) got the most talk. Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis), Redford (All Is Lost), Hugh Jackman (Prisoners), Michael B Jordan (Fruitvale Station), Gandolfini (Enough Said), and even McConaughey's performance in Mud seemed to be in the discussion too. It was a heavy year.

And, honestly, if James Franco were to ever win an Oscar for something, his lead in Spring Breakers was phenomenal.

Quote:

You Were Never Really Here has been snubbed this year and its a shame. Films like that were obviously made to simply be good films and not awards darlings. My guess is that it was snubbed because there wasn't enough money to put behind a decent campaign for the film. As unfair as it is, these awards shows rely heavily on who is spending the money on a campaign.

Ramsay said in an interview (before noms were announced) she doubted it'd get anything, and probably for the same reason you mentioned. She sent out screeners to the Academy, but I suppose it simply didn't have enough backing... either way, great film, and one of Phoenix's best performances. Luckily they both received awards at Cannes for it. I expect it'll make a lot of critic's decade lists, as well as underappreciated films of the decade lists. Weird that it doesn't have too hot an IMDb score. It's a hard film to dislike.

I'd say You Were Never Really Here suffered from a botched and lengthy release, but Glen Close got a nom, so...

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

Villain wrote:

You Were Never Really Here has been snubbed this year and its a shame. Films like that were obviously made to simply be good films and not awards darlings. My guess is that it was snubbed because there wasn't enough money to put behind a decent campaign for the film. As unfair as it is, these awards shows rely heavily on who is spending the money on a campaign.

Sad but true.

Look at this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-awar...SKCN1Q81DI

It's too bad the whole thing has become commercialized, but what can you do? Time, not money spent on an award campaign, is the ultimate test. And I'd like to think You Were Never Really Here will hold up well over the years.

badseed

Gender: Male
Age: 35
Location: FL

Hayden wrote:

badseed wrote:

Really? I've heard loads of people argue that DiCaprio should have won that year. Haven't heard as much for Phoenix, then again his lack of nomination may be why. 2013 was a ridiculous year for lead actors if I remember correctly. Not that the nominees were bad, just that there were so many great performances that a lot of good ones got snubbed. I still stick by Chiwetel Ejiofor personally.

Phoneix's snub definitely kept consideration down, but keep in mind the entire world was gunning for DiCaprio to win an Oscar Laughing

He got it eventually though, so it's all good. Plus, out of the 'snubbed' actors that year, Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips) got the most talk. Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis), Redford (All Is Lost), Hugh Jackman (Prisoners), Michael B Jordan (Fruitvale Station), Gandolfini (Enough Said), and even McConaughey's performance in Mud seemed to be in the discussion too. It was a heavy year.

And, honestly, if James Franco were to ever win an Oscar for something, his lead in Spring Breakers was phenomenal.

Yes! That really was the most stacked year of possible nominees I can ever recall since I started following the Oscars (which was 2002/3 in case anyone's wondering). I didn't think of Jackman as a contender but the rest was nearly too close to call. Personally my nominees would have been, in order of preference: Ejiofor, Isaac, Bale, Phoenix and DiCaprio. Nothing against McConaughey, he's really good at what he does, but the weight loss is all that gave his performance the edge over so many superior performances. Had he not lost the weight, it would have just been another McConaughey performance, but with more tears. I don't mean to talk it down so much, as it would probably be my sixth nominee.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

badseed wrote:

Hayden wrote:

badseed wrote:

Really? I've heard loads of people argue that DiCaprio should have won that year. Haven't heard as much for Phoenix, then again his lack of nomination may be why. 2013 was a ridiculous year for lead actors if I remember correctly. Not that the nominees were bad, just that there were so many great performances that a lot of good ones got snubbed. I still stick by Chiwetel Ejiofor personally.

Phoneix's snub definitely kept consideration down, but keep in mind the entire world was gunning for DiCaprio to win an Oscar Laughing

He got it eventually though, so it's all good. Plus, out of the 'snubbed' actors that year, Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips) got the most talk. Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis), Redford (All Is Lost), Hugh Jackman (Prisoners), Michael B Jordan (Fruitvale Station), Gandolfini (Enough Said), and even McConaughey's performance in Mud seemed to be in the discussion too. It was a heavy year.

And, honestly, if James Franco were to ever win an Oscar for something, his lead in Spring Breakers was phenomenal.

Yes! That really was the most stacked year of possible nominees I can ever recall since I started following the Oscars (which was 2002/3 in case anyone's wondering). I didn't think of Jackman as a contender but the rest was nearly too close to call. Personally my nominees would have been, in order of preference: Ejiofor, Isaac, Bale, Phoenix and DiCaprio. Nothing against McConaughey, he's really good at what he does, but the weight loss is all that gave his performance the edge over so many superior performances. Had he not lost the weight, it would have just been another McConaughey performance, but with more tears. I don't mean to talk it down so much, as it would probably be my sixth nominee.

Shame the lead actress category that year felt like a default setting. I think it struggled to squeeze 5 nominees. Even the supporting actor noms were stacked (with notable snubs). Kinda the opposite of what's happening now.

Quote:

And I'd like to think You Were Never Really Here will hold up well over the years.

Impossible to tell of course, but I think it will. Has that vibe.

As for the business side of this all, that's always ugly, but this year in particular I simply can't disagree with the pool choice. I genuinely believe most of 2018's best films, regardless of budget or campaigns, are up there. There's some awful ones too (cough, Vice, Bohemian Rhapsody, Black Panther), but other people liked them, so whatever.

Villain

Gender: Male
Age: 28
Location: Canaduh

Read an interesting article this morning on Rolling Stone about a potential Green Book win.

https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/mov...re-795587/
_________________
Check out some of my other interest on my own review site. Scum N' Villainy

http://www.scumnvillainy.com/

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

Villain wrote:

Read an interesting article this morning on Rolling Stone about a potential Green Book win.

https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/mov...re-795587/

Interesting article indeed. I was also intrigued by the article linked within about how preferential balloting works. I always thought The Academy used a point-based system just like how BEA does its film polls, but that actually isn't how it works.

But anyway, the article states Green Book winning Best Picture would be a political setback for the awards, and preferential balloting increases its chances. So what? The article seemingly preaches the Academy has a duty to make their awards political, which I disagree with. The awards should be about the art and the craft, and nothing else.

PurpleHazel

Hayden wrote:

this year in particular I simply can't disagree with the pool choice. There's some awful ones too (cough, Vice, Bohemian Rhapsody, Black Panther), but other people liked them, so whatever.

Though Bohemian Rhapsody is an exceptional nom in terms of how many critics disliked it.

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/ar...of-africa/

Last edited by PurpleHazel on 02/20/2019 22:06; edited 1 time in total

Villain

Gender: Male
Age: 28
Location: Canaduh

I didn't really hate Bohemian Rhapsody, but without Rami Malek's performance and the Live Aid scene it would've been nothing.
_________________
Check out some of my other interest on my own review site. Scum N' Villainy

http://www.scumnvillainy.com/

Hayden

Location: CDMX

Villain wrote:

I didn't really hate Bohemian Rhapsody, but without Rami Malek's performance and the Live Aid scene it would've been nothing.

But that's the thing. Those seem to be everybody's first two 'defences', and they are nothing.

Malek is really off most of the film (and I like him), his performance is an impression more than anything, every song was embarrassingly lipsynced, and the actual Live Aid concert is on Youtube (and it's better). I struggle to find any redeemable qualities about Bohemian Rhapsody... and I like Queen... and movies. Like, okay, the actor who played Brian May was dead on, but that's about it.

Also, for a film curated by the actual band, these are just awful: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1727824/go...=tt_trv_gf Laughing

I'm not one to bash a film this hard, but it's gained a solid bucket of awards and I can't justify any of them. Plus, it's earned a crapload of money and can afford some criticism.