Comedy Series: 30 Rock Lead Actor in a Comedy Series: Steve Carell, The Office Lead Actress in a Comedy Series: Tina Fey, 30 Rock Lead Actor in a Drama Series: Jon Hamm, Mad Men Lead Actress in a Drama Series: Glenn Clsoe, Damages Guest Actor in a Drama Series: Glynn Turman, In Treatment Guest Actress in a Drama Series: Ellen Burstyn, Big Love Miniseries: Cranford Made for Television Film: A Raisin in the Sun
Posts: 17913 | Location: North Carolina, USA | Registered: April 11, 2005
AAN -- Best Foreign Language Film Cannes Film Festival -- Best Actor (for the male ensemble cast)
Dutiful, but only just that for me. Even on the "making of" doc attached to the DVD, the filmmakers and cast speak of their sense of duty. Fair enough. Still, not enough poetry.
Hilary and Jackie (1998, directed by Anand Tucker) - B-
What an AMAZING performance from Emily Watson. Another one that could easily be a better Oscar winner than Gwyneth Paltrow, in 1999.
For Your Emmy Consideration: Kyra Sedgwick - Best Actress in a Drama Series "Damages" - Best Drama Series Zeljko Ivanek - Best Supporting Actor in a Drama Series Glynn Turman - Guest Actor in a Drama Series
Posts: 13977 | Location: Natal, RN, Brazil | Registered: October 21, 2002
Originally posted by MysteriousRent: North Country
Saw it on Lifetime, so maybe the good parts were edited out? Decent performances, but wow with the melodrama.
C
I found this movie really ridiculous with all the melodramatic piling on. What did Charlize Theron's sexual past as a teenager have to do with the case, really? What judge would ever let a defense lawyer bring up that material in the first place? The shocking revelations in the court case were phony and constantly took me out of the film. Also, I thought Frances McDormand, whom I usually love, was a big slab of ham in the film. I hated the film and hated the fact that Oscar fell for this melodramatic, weepy mess.
Posts: 12939 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
The screenplay wasn't the best, but Joan Crawford was great. I love bitchy characters and Eva was a grade A bitch.
Not great, but fun to watch.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pizzatarian,
------------------------ "There's an old joke - um... two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions." Well, that's essentially how I feel about life - full of loneliness, and misery, and suffering, and unhappiness, and it's all over much too quickly. The... the other important joke, for me, is one that's usually attributed to Groucho Marx; but, I think it appears originally in Freud's "Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious," and it goes like this - I'm paraphrasing - um, "I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member." That's the key joke of my adult life, in terms of my relationships with women. " - Alvy Singer
Ok, so i was disappointed in two ways: the high expectations everyone put me on, but also the fact that the movie and the character development could've been so much better, especially with those actors.
I join the boat of all the people who say that if Sideways deserved a nomination before supporting actors and picture and screenplay it was for paul giamatti, who really should've gotten it over clint eastwood. He was extraordinaryly good and natural, i had no idea he was so tallented
Virgina Madsen's performance was surprisingly short (i had no idea they had such small roles, especially sandra oh), but i get and support the nomination. she was amazing in every single scene, especially the one where she talks about the wine being alive (gave me chills). I fell in love with the character as soon as she was on screen, because madsen created such an endearing and lovable and interesting character (as thomas haden church's character was always saying) with the limited screentime she was given (it was the only performance i was missing from that category, so IMO blanchett still crushed the other ones). Haden Church was good fun too, although i don't think he was oscar worthy at all.
The script is sharp and smart, and the story is pleasantfully uplifting, but the most deep and introspective moments are shadowed by the most frequent silly and pointless ones. Still, it flows quite quickly and pacedly, but i left wanting so much more from those characters...
Originally posted by MysteriousRent: North Country
Saw it on Lifetime, so maybe the good parts were edited out? Decent performances, but wow with the melodrama.
C
I found this movie really ridiculous with all the melodramatic piling on. What did Charlize Theron's sexual past as a teenager have to do with the case, really? What judge would ever let a defense lawyer bring up that material in the first place? The shocking revelations in the court case were phony and constantly took me out of the film. Also, I thought Frances McDormand, whom I usually love, was a big slab of ham in the film. I hated the film and hated the fact that Oscar fell for this melodramatic, weepy mess.
My thoughts exactly. The director's concern might have been on the dramatic scenes, and the result was a disaster.
FYC EMMY VOTERS!!!
Please consider the following performances:
Kristin Chenoweth (Pushing Daisies) Julia Louis Dreyfus (New Adventures of Old Christine) Steve Carell (The Office) Hugh Laurie (House) Kyra Sedgwick (The Closer) Neil Patrick Harris (How I Met Your Mother)
Posts: 8765 | Location: Manila | Registered: August 19, 2006
Leatherheads A lot of fun. Well directed by Clooney and very well performed by the cast (Zellweger is solid, but I kept picturing Catherine Zeta-Jones in this role. She would have rocked it). The movie goes on a little too long. I'm not really sure I needed the final football game (even though it ended up being fun). B+
Emmy FYCs: (more to come) Julia Louis-Dreyfus, The New Adventures Of Old Christine
27 DRESSES - B+ I kept putting off seeing this film because i loved Devil Wears Prada, Knocked Up and Enchanted so much. I was afraid this film would fall short of those. Well, the story is very far-fetched and credibility is really stretched. Nevertheless, it is still a pretty fun watch and i was not bored. And i'm glad to report that Katherine Heigl and James Marden do very well in their roles and together. Can they even be an updated Doris Day and Rock Hudson?
As for North Country, say what you like, it is still a better film than Crash.
Posts: 601 | Location: Singapore | Registered: February 22, 2005
I decided to give this movie another change because I’m currently reading the book.
The first time I watched it, I hated it. After this viewing, I still kind of hate it.
The first third of the film is great. James McAvoy is great; I can’t wait to see what else he has in him in the future. Keira Knightley is SO SO SO BAD that for me she really kills the film, I am shocked that people can stand her as an actress. How people could actually think that she was Oscar worthy in this film kills me. This is almost as bad as her performance in Pride & Prejudice. I pray that she will disappear from Hollywood sooner rather than later. Joe Wright’s direction is perfect in this first third of the film. It really makes you think that this is going to be an amazing film. Saoirse Ronan is okay, not really sure why she got the Oscar nomination. I think that the role itself got the nomination and not necessarily her performance.
The second third of the film is where the film falls apart, big time. The screenplay dissolves into this “war epic” that never really takes off for me. You don’t really feel anything for Robbie because we don’t really know him well enough to feel bad. You get such a small sense of who he is in the first part of the film that you really can’t feel that bad for him. Once again James McAvoy is great with what he has to work with. Romola Garai is not good at all and she really kills the scene with Robbie and Cecilia. The second third of the film starts to pick up again during that scene at the end, but all of the war scenes were so bad, that it really can’t rise above it.
The last part of the film is good, but it just gives you everything in a nice neat package. It doesn’t really let us feel for anyone at the end of the film. Vanessa Redgrave is great, but no where near Oscar worthy.
Overall, I am shocked that the Academy fell for this BS film. Yes of course it deserved some tech nods, but the nomination for Best Picture and Best Supporting Actress were undeserving! Into the Wild missed out on these nominations because of this film, it is such a shame.
I decided to give this movie another change because I’m currently reading the book.
The first time I watched it, I hated it. After this viewing, I still kind of hate it.
The first third of the film is great. James McAvoy is great; I can’t wait to see what else he has in him in the future. Keira Knightley is SO SO SO BAD that for me she really kills the film, I am shocked that people can stand her as an actress. How people could actually think that she was Oscar worthy in this film kills me. This is almost as bad as her performance in Pride & Prejudice. I pray that she will disappear from Hollywood sooner rather than later. Joe Wright’s direction is perfect in this first third of the film. It really makes you think that this is going to be an amazing film. Saoirse Ronan is okay, not really sure why she got the Oscar nomination. I think that the role itself got the nomination and not necessarily her performance.
The second third of the film is where the film falls apart, big time. The screenplay dissolves into this “war epic” that never really takes off for me. You don’t really feel anything for Robbie because we don’t really know him well enough to feel bad. You get such a small sense of who he is in the first part of the film that you really can’t feel that bad for him. Once again James McAvoy is great with what he has to work with. Romola Garai is not good at all and she really kills the scene with Robbie and Cecilia. The second third of the film starts to pick up again during that scene at the end, but all of the war scenes were so bad, that it really can’t rise above it.
The last part of the film is good, but it just gives you everything in a nice neat package. It doesn’t really let us feel for anyone at the end of the film. Vanessa Redgrave is great, but no where near Oscar worthy.
Overall, I am shocked that the Academy fell for this BS film. Yes of course it deserved some tech nods, but the nomination for Best Picture and Best Supporting Actress were undeserving! Into the Wild missed out on these nominations because of this film, it is such a shame.
Atonement – C-
Right on the money, the 2nd third of the film put me straight to sleep. I woke up to Redgrave's overwrought interview. Awful movie.
I decided to give this movie another change because I’m currently reading the book.
The first time I watched it, I hated it. After this viewing, I still kind of hate it.
The first third of the film is great. James McAvoy is great; I can’t wait to see what else he has in him in the future. Keira Knightley is SO SO SO BAD that for me she really kills the film, I am shocked that people can stand her as an actress. How people could actually think that she was Oscar worthy in this film kills me. This is almost as bad as her performance in Pride & Prejudice. I pray that she will disappear from Hollywood sooner rather than later. Joe Wright’s direction is perfect in this first third of the film. It really makes you think that this is going to be an amazing film. Saoirse Ronan is okay, not really sure why she got the Oscar nomination. I think that the role itself got the nomination and not necessarily her performance.
The second third of the film is where the film falls apart, big time. The screenplay dissolves into this “war epic” that never really takes off for me. You don’t really feel anything for Robbie because we don’t really know him well enough to feel bad. You get such a small sense of who he is in the first part of the film that you really can’t feel that bad for him. Once again James McAvoy is great with what he has to work with. Romola Garai is not good at all and she really kills the scene with Robbie and Cecilia. The second third of the film starts to pick up again during that scene at the end, but all of the war scenes were so bad, that it really can’t rise above it.
The last part of the film is good, but it just gives you everything in a nice neat package. It doesn’t really let us feel for anyone at the end of the film. Vanessa Redgrave is great, but no where near Oscar worthy.
Overall, I am shocked that the Academy fell for this BS film. Yes of course it deserved some tech nods, but the nomination for Best Picture and Best Supporting Actress were undeserving! Into the Wild missed out on these nominations because of this film, it is such a shame.
Atonement – C-
Right on the money, the 2nd third of the film put me straight to sleep. I woke up to Redgrave's overwrought interview. Awful movie.
I don't get the Keira Knightley hate. She isn't the most versatile actress but neither is Natalie Portman and especially Jake Gyllenhaal (two actors that are adored by most on this board), yet she's able to exude more passion and has more screen presence than either or them and many others. Her uppercrust vunerable snob-girl was right on point and felt very real to me. I had more of a problem with McAvoy who still comes off as flat in just about every flick he's in.
For Your 2008 Emmy Consideration:
Pushing Daisies (Outstanding Comedy Series) Anna Friel (Ouststanding Lead Actress in a Comedy) Kristen Chenoweth (Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy) Chi McBride (Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy)
Friday Night Lights (Outstanding Drama Series) Kyle Chandler (Outstanding Leading Actor in a Drama) Connie Britton (Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama) Scott Porter (Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama)
Katherine Hepburn was RIGHT about Oscar winning performances.
Pacino is over-the-hop and hammy to the nth degree in this one. He had no business winning the Oscar for this role. Ironically it's his performance that saves the film from being a bloated mess. I find it interesting that the movie's selling point is also the biggest distraction.
C-
This message has been edited. Last edited by: FishBiscuit,
Posts: 4836 | Location: Illinois | Registered: June 30, 2006
Originally posted by FishBiscuit: "Scent of a Woman" 1992
Katherine Hepburn was RIGHT about Oscar winning preformances.
Pacino is over-the-hop and hammy to the nth degree in this one. He had no business winning the Oscar for this role. Ironically it's his preformance that saves the film from being a bloated mess. I find it interesting that the movie's selling point is also the biggest distraction.
C-
What's a preformance? Is that anything like precum?
Originally posted by FishBiscuit: "Scent of a Woman" 1992
Katherine Hepburn was RIGHT about Oscar winning preformances.
Pacino is over-the-hop and hammy to the nth degree in this one. He had no business winning the Oscar for this role. Ironically it's his preformance that saves the film from being a bloated mess. I find it interesting that the movie's selling point is also the biggest distraction.
C-
What's a preformance? Is that anything like precum?
PS: You're right about the movie.
LOL!! Is that anything like precum? LOL...too much.
Posts: 2770 | Location: Canada | Registered: December 13, 2007
