Oscars. Who's your pick for...


Recommended Posts

Best Picture

Best Actor

Best Actress

Best Director

I haven't seen them all, but I was particularly impressed with the remake of A Star Is Born. Bradley Cooper, seriously, you had to prove you could sing, write, and direct, too! Being a stud actor wasn't enough for you? C'mon, mate, leave some for the rest of us! Lady Gaga surprisingly impressive. I thought she would deliver cringe moments, but no. Great job. Great Soundtrack, too, of course. 

BlacKkKlansman didn't really deliver for me. Maybe I expected too much. 

Bohemian Rhapsody. Great for a Freddy fan, which I am, but not a particularly great movie, in my opinion. That said, Rami's performance was exceptional. He's my favourite for best actor nod. Mr Cooper a close second. 

Roma. Stunningly well-filmed dog turds. Not easy to do. This seems to be winning a swag of awards, and it was supremely well achieved. Certainly the most artistic of the bunch. Will have to slot in Cuaron for the director nod. 

That's all I've seen of the main bunch. Of the rest, I really want to see The Favourite. And I think it will, sight unseen, pinch Best Picture. And I'd love to see Olivia Colman get Best Actress. She's great. I've seen snippets of her performance only, but I'll take her on faith. 

What are your picks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MoeFOH said:

 

I haven't seen them all, but I was particularly impressed with the remake of A Star Is Born. Bradley Cooper, seriously, you had to prove you could sing, write, and direct, too! Being a stud actor wasn't enough for you? C'mon, mate, leave some for the rest of us! Lady Gaga surprisingly impressive. I thought she would deliver cringe moments, but no. Great job. Great Soundtrack, too, of course. 

I had zero expectations for that one. It impressed me.

Did you know he took 18 months of voice lessons before filming? That is serious inspiration

Also good to see Lady Gaga NOT in costume. Didn't recognize her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Derboesekoenig said:

I had zero expectations for that one. It impressed me.

Did you know he took 18 months of voice lessons before filming? That is serious inspiration

Also good to see Lady Gaga NOT in costume. Didn't recognize her

I didn't know that. But I was blown away by how good his voice was. The film's a cracker. Great direction. Writing, too. He certainly improved upon the '76 version (I think there are two others prior to that, too). And that's all you can ask, right--if you're going to do a remake, for Christ's sake make it better than its predecessors!

I'm not a fan of Gaga. Nothing against her, just not my type of music at all. However, she was great in this. And, yeah, I agree, she looks great as that plain Jane brunette. I much prefer that look to her overly made-up stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MoeFOH said:

I didn't know that. But I was blown away by how good his voice was. The film's a cracker. Great direction. Writing, too. He certainly improved upon the '76 version (I think there are two others prior to that, too). And that's all you can ask, right--if you're going to do a remake, for Christ's sake make it better than its predecessors!

I'm not a fan of Gaga. Nothing against her, just not my type of music at all. However, she was great in this. And, yeah, I agree, she looks great as that plain Jane brunette. I much prefer that look to her overly made-up stuff. 

Three, actually. 1976 with Babs, 1954 with Judy Garland, and 1937 with Janet Gaynor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any of the nominated films, and haven't watched any awards show in eons. But if it's any consolation, I've recently re-watched John Wick 1 & 2, and watched Polar and Close. I guess I'm just a romantic at heart.

P.S. I think Gaga is very talented.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of those things that i really could not care less about. 

that said, i tried watching Roma the other evening. lasted 30 minutes. by that stage, the sum total of what had happened was that the staff had cleaned the house. dad had got home. the only thing of any excitement was whether or not the dog would get out. without a hint of exaggeration, the most boring 30 minutes ever put on film. unless the rest of this film is godfather meets citizen kane meets star wars then it is beyond comprehension that it could be nominated for anything, let alone win something. what a heap of steaming excrement this film is. 

naturally, it was in black and white, meaning it is the sort of film that should win something but because it is such utter unadulterated crap, we put it in black and white to distract anyone silly enough to watch it. we really don't want anyone actually taking any notice of what the film really is like. plus lots of arty, meaningful silences, because we really had nothing to say. 

if i had paid to watch this, i would have been livid. i honestly would rather watch a test pattern because at least you know what the test pattern is for and whye it exists and what it is trying to say. maybe something comes out of the rest of this drivel but if i live to be ten thousand, and spent it in a tiny unlit cell, i would still think my life too short to watch this monumentally boring nonsense. 

this director had done some decent stuff before. why this horrorshow. 

as for all the reviews talking about how moving, how evocative, how christ knows what. you have all outed yourself as pretentious wannabees and no-talent hacks who are so scared that you might have missed something, because you'd know you have found this utterly dire, that you felt compelled to jump on the bandwagon and come up with monumental tosserisms and nonsensical rubbish. this is the cinematic emperor's new clothes. any half decent critic would have called it out for what it is - boring pretentious drivel. utter slop. 

and if it wins anything at the oscars other than best equivalent for a sleeping pill, then the academy will have shamed itself and proved itself utterly worthless. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colt45 said:

I haven't seen any of the nominated films, and haven't watched any awards show in eons. But if it's any consolation, I've recently re-watched John Wick 1 & 2, and watched Polar and Close. I guess I'm just a romantic at heart.

P.S. I think Gaga is very talented.

A Die Hard romantic. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best Picture: Wallstreet

Best Actor: Michael Douglas

Best Actress: Charlie Sheen 

Best Director: Oliver Stone

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Predictions...

Best Picture - Green Book

Best Actor - Christian Bale, Vice

Best Actress - Olivia Colman, The Favourite 

Best Supporting Actor - Mahershala Ali, Green Book

Best Supporting Actress - Regina King, If Beale Street Could Talk

Best Director - Alfonso Cuaron, Roma

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, JohnS said:

My Predictions...

Best Director - Alfonso Cuaron, Roma

john, a tree stump could have done a better job as a director than this bloke. it was godawful. 

and so i am entirely in agreement with you. they'll give it to him because they all assume there must be something to it. fools. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wife and I were in Mexico for Christmas with her family (she’s from Mexico). Everyone had heard such good things about Roma and, it being a Mexican film we had to watch it. M-i-L walked out about 30 minutes in, wife fell asleep, I managed to get to the end because I was convinced something good had to be coming up - after all, all those glowing reviews could not be that far off the mark, could they?

Of course, myself and all 5 family members chatted afterwards to see if anyone thought it was amazing. Not one. Average at best.

Having watched a number of the other awards darlings (and not just this season) I do believe there might be a smidge of bull crap spouted among the critics and a lot of the audience buy into it because they feel they should.

just an opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched Roma the other night. I, too, found it boring with a boring storyline and very self indulgent in its direction. Some of the shots were hard to achieve but I don't think added to the 'lack of' story. The sets were very good and believable and the acting was restrained from the main character which made me feel something for her plight, but not sure what that was. I, therefore, think it will win best picture or best director perhaps.

PS. I hate dog turds 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

john, a tree stump could have done a better job as a director than this bloke. it was godawful. 

and so i am entirely in agreement with you. they'll give it to him because they all assume there must be something to it. fools. 

Yes, well that us exactly why I think he'll win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever since Hell or High Water came up empty-handed from any of the major award shows, I figured out my truth:

What I like doesn’t win awards, and what wins awards ... I don’t like.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, data said:

Best Picture: Wallstreet

Best Actor: Michael Douglas

Best Actress: Charlie Sheen 

Best Director: Oliver Stone

    ...Kind'a last decade, prior millennium, aren't we? :thinking:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems Roma is getting at least a 4.5/5 dog turd rating...:rotfl:

I disagree. In my view, I don't think it's a great film or is deserving of all the accolades. But that's just my view. I think it's wrong not to concede that there are genuine artistic and technical elements and achievements that the average movie-going punter simply does not get. I didn't really get what made Citizen Kane such a revered film till I watched it with commentary from a contemporary director. The long, unbroken edits... the incredible depth of field in some shots... and so on. 

Straight up, it's easy to see that Roma is exquisitely shot. Is that all a film is? Of course not. The storyline is far from a firecracker, yes, but it had its moments. And I think a languid approach to film-making is something we're not used to. It's more of a European thing. Thus, anything that doesn't blow our socks off is usually condemned to the trash can. I think of something like Inarritu's Biutiful in comparison. Beautifully shot, similarly languid, sometimes hard to watch due to its pace, and ultimately just a heart-wrenching tale. I think it's a far better film than Roma, by the way, but they have similar goals and results, in my opinion.

That said, I think the other thing that most would concur with is that the whole Oscars' process, the Academy and whatnot, has some rather loathsome elements which have little or nothing to do with a film's quality...

Remember the year of The English Patient? Jesus. I wanted to kill myself. 

And the year Pulp Fiction only got Best Screenplay and maybe something else. I can't recall... RIP OFF! 

 :fuel:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have to really think hard about what the director or writer is trying to convey, then the film has failed for me. I go to the cinemas to be entertained, not to be educated or sermonized.

I just don't get these arty-farty films. Next you will see a subtitled black & white film (shot on 8mm) trying to get you to contemplate the existentialism of a cake with green icing, that had been left out in the rain by an ex-girlfriend who wore a yellow dress, and the melancholy felt by the lead actor who cannot remember how to create the magnificence of that cake. The film will probably star Scarlett Johansson as "The Ex" (only seen in colourised, grainy flashbacks), Shia Lebeouf as "The Melancholy Man", and Johnny Depp as "The Cake".

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

If I have to really think hard about what the director or writer is trying to convey, then the film has failed for me. I go to the cinemas to be entertained, not to be educated or sermonized.

I just don't get these arty-farty films. Next you will see a subtitled black & white film (shot on 8mm) trying to get you to contemplate the existentialism of a cake with green icing, that had been left out in the rain by an ex-girlfriend who wore a yellow dress, and the melancholy felt by the lead actor who cannot remember how to create the magnificence of that cake. The film will probably star Scarlett Johansson as "The Ex" (only seen in colourised, grainy flashbacks), Shia Lebeouf as "The Melancholy Man", and Johnny Depp as "The Cake".

fuzz, roma aspired to that. and fell short. way short. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

If I have to really think hard about what the director or writer is trying to convey, then the film has failed for me. I go to the cinemas to be entertained, not to be educated or sermonized.

Exactly my point. People go to the cinemas for a variety of reasons. Some go just for the very reasons you happen to loathe. 

Each to their own. : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.