All about Eve - old
-
Posts
361 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by All about Eve - old
-
-
You have to be pretty committed to watch the Oscars in the UK. The ceremony starts after 1am and can go on until 5am. Before that you have to endure the brain dead coverage of the red carpet by E presenters.
I was fine with Vikander winning though I would have loved to have seen it go to Winslet.
Vikander was the actress story of the year. She was great in Testament of Youth and Ex Machina and did all she could with the Danish girl role.
Plus I ship Vikbender -surely the greatest combination of physical beauty +serious acting talent in one relationship since Daniel Day Lewis +Isabelle Adjani!
I was torn between Stallone, a legend who created an iconic character and Rylance, one of those brilliant unsung actors who usually go without the big accolades.
After seeing how happy he looked while taking selfies with Spielberg, I can't begrudge him the win.
Happy for Brie Larson.
Love Leo. I've wanted him to win for years. I just wish I could be happier it's for this film which will be forgotten soon.
Inarritu winning back to back is the minority story which should be making headlines.
Hollywood's successful minorities in the next couple of decades will be Indian, Chinese and Hispanic, imo.
I would have loved to see Mad Max win best picture but Spotlight will do.
-
4 hours ago, Joel M said:
not the same thing. Room is the tiny movie that made it and it's box office makes it a relative success. Steve Jobs was a much bigger and more commercial project that didn't even needed to make that much money to be a success but bombed horribly.
Who made the most money doesn't matter for the oscars because not every movie has the same financial ceiling, but relative BO success matters more than anything. I can think of only one movie that won a "big" Academy Award without being succesful at the BO, The Hurt Locker, which is a rare exception. Almost every movie that has won one of the big awards (picture, directing, screenplays, acting) has been at least a mild success regarding budget and expectations. If a really small movie like Room makes 15m at the box office instead of 2, it's a hit. If a 30m budgeted big studio movie with famous names both behind and in front of the camera and substantial marketing push struggles to make 30m WW it's a huge flop.
The Academy doesn't like to give it's biggest awards to movies that audiences rejected.
Oh, I see all that. I know there were different expectations of the two films. I suppose I'm just saying it's unfair.
A great performance is a great performance. But there seems to have been gloomy cloud over his nominations (although thankfully he's been nominated for everything, so clearly voters do have integrity).
Two men and a dog saw Trumbo but he's also been nominated which is great.
If the Martian had flopped no way would Damon have been in any awards conversation, imo.
So, it's swings and roundabouts, I suppose.
-
6 hours ago, filmlover said:
If it weren't for the fact he already won last year, we would probably be seeing Redmayne winning.
Now, that is a scary thought lol
-
3 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:
Looking at the supporting actor nominees in 2013 and lead actor nominees this year, Fassbender was easily the best among them both times. Can't wait for them to give him his own overdue Oscar in a year where he's like the 3rd or 4th most deserving nominee.
Agree.
It's funny, Room made no money but Brie Larson is a lock for actress. However, Steve Jobs' under performance has been held against Fassbender from the start of awards season. That idiot Scott Feinberg from The Hollywood reporter refused to even accept he would be nominated until he was. He actually said Fassbender was an actor not a star! Well, on that basis perhaps Daniel Day Lewis should return his oscars and hand them over to Will Smith.
-
Redmayne really has great PR. He wasn't even nominated by several critics groups for this mannered performance. No one thinks he should win yet he's second favourite? Okay. Not that it matters of course since Leo is a lock but it bugs me.
-
I agree Spotlight is the 'important ' subject film this year, not Big Short. I can't see the latter winning best picture. I never could. It's easily Revenant v Spotlight, imo and I think Revenant has it.
-
It's like the year JLaw won the globes and Bafta but Lupita got SAG and Oscar.
So, I think the Oscar goes to Vikander but I'd love to see Winslet take it, mainly because Steve Jobs was in my top 3 of last year and Fassbender isn't going to get the best actor award he deserves.
I like Vikander but I didn't care for the Danish Girl and an early win for her might not bode well for the rest of her career.
-
I had a simple formula last year for assessing awards potential. I just watched all the films I could and tried as objectively as possible to rate them on quality and whether I liked them. Give or take a couple of surprises I pretty accurately picked all the nominees for the Oscars and most of the precursors.
In the past I got caught up in PR hype and predictions from self styled 'pundits' who just guess along with the rest of us but dress it up as some kind of inside knowledge.
Bonus tip -avoid ranting bloggers like Sasha Stone and that weasel Scott Feinberg.
-
I would have preferred Miller to win because I loved Fury Road and saw it twice while I appreciated Revenant but have no desire to see it again. However, good for Inarritu. It makes it the third consecutive year a Mexican is poised to take one of the biggest Oscars. Wish the media and internet thought that was a story worth writing about.
-
4 hours ago, TalismanRing said:
Too cute
The picture with Leo was just cuteness overload too.
-
3 hours ago, TalismanRing said:
Tremblay was lead and he deserved and Oscar nom over everybody
I actually wouldn't disagree with you on either point.
-
1 hour ago, Joel M said:
Imitation Game last year got all the big nominations and won screenplay, Django and Silver Linings two years before it got nominated for everything and won some major awards. His movies this year either bombed with audiences and critics (Burnt, Macbeth) or the voters didn't like very much (Carol, H8ful).
He'll bounce back. Probably with the inspirational story of a paraplegic holocaust survivor who invented something important.
I really liked Imitation Game but despite being touted as a big contender it fizzled out and got overtaken by Theory of everything. Imitation Game didn't even win best British film at the Baftas which was quite a shock.
Django and Silver linings didn't win as big as he would have hoped.
I'm not saying he's been out of the awards loop entirely but since the Artist he has not been the force he once was or was thought to be.
-
17 minutes ago, filmlover said:
Pretty sure that's never going to happen no matter who's in it at this point.
There's certainly no demand for it but who knows, some unbright spark is bound to suggest it should happen. But I agree, it probably won't happen
-
23 minutes ago, filmlover said:
Honestly, even after seeing Carol, I had a feeling that Mara's performance was just too "reserved" to be an Oscar winner. Vikander, for as lousy a movie as she's stuck in, still has plenty of scenes where she is forced to cry and whatnot.
I agree. Vikander's role is more showy. Plus she has the advantage of Ex Machina being loved by so many. So her win for Danish Girl which many people don't care for is as much for Machina as anything.
As a gossipy aside, I have to say the faces of the Mara sisters as they watched Vikander's speech were , ahem, 'interesting'!
Vikander has certainly stolen Rooney's awards thunder, possibly taken her role in the Dragon tatoo sequel and is ensconced in the arms of Fassbender with whom Rooney apparently had a thing -that's a lot of grievances. Lol
-
54 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:
It looks like this year he himself doesn't give a shit about either of his releases.
I read somewhere that his company has problems. Maybe his attention is on those matters. Still, I think voters don't buy what he's selling anymore even if he puts an effort into it.
Mara is practically invisible this awards season despie being touted as a frontrunner a few months ago. She could have scooped up a good few 'supporting' prizes by now to be the top contender for the Oscar.
He handled Macbeth really badly too. The film did well in Britain due mainly to the efforts of the director and cast rather than any great marketing campaign by TWC.
-
1 hour ago, The Stingray said:
So Brie is pretty much a lock now or what?
I dig Elba but him over the kid from Room is a bit of a joke imo.
I agree. Little Jacob Tremblay was great and he's utterly adorable on the red carpet too. He deserved an Oscar nom over Ruffalo.
-
I think being backed by Weinstein is increasingly a liability now rather than an asset in any campaign. In the past few years voters seem to have wised up to his sledgehammer tactics or simply decided to ignore what he's selling because he's selling it.
-
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 0:12 AM, Impact said:
Actors shouldn't be pitted against each other. How can you really compare Dicaprio to Fassbender this year. One man silently endures
physical hardships to create a character. The other infuses a torrent of words with emotion to create his.
Clearly each succeeded because they're both nominated. So why should they have to do more for an award.
However, awards do exist.
So, they should either be competitive ie the best 5 with one winner. Or they should be like the Palm Springs awards - lots of categories which can spread the honours.
Increasing the number of nominees to 10 or 20 is a pointless lowering of standards.
If awards are competitive, you're either in the top 5 or you're not. Voters either rate your performance or they don't. Demanding that they do so is rather like demanding that someone be your friend whether they like you or not!
-
Ice Cube was a guest on the Graham Norton show on the BBC. He was asked about the Oscars controversy and gave such a dignified response you can't help but respect the man.
It's on YouTube and deserves millions of views.
Interestingly Will Smith was announced as next week's guest prompting a sharp intake of breath from the studio audience that sounded pretty negative. The Smiths are not going to come out well from this.
-
Why don't they go the whole hog and give participation oscars to everyone who managed to get on a film set in any given year?
That way noone's fragile ego gets bruised.
-
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:29 AM, filmlover said:
By the way, this probably won't come as a surprise, but everybody avoided Mel Gibson at the Golden Globes. Don't bet on a comeback anytime soon, Mel. Probably wasn't a smart choice to invite him to a ceremony where neither of his two remaining lifelines (Jodie Foster and Robert Downey Jr.) were in attendance.
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/mel-gibson-golden-globes-backstage-bar-details/
Radar isn't an outlet I would trust to get the day right let alone have any inside information on a big awards ceremonies. They would be last on anyone's list of invitees.
-
I might have taken Jada PS and Spike Lee seriously if they had called for more black cinematographers, writers etc to create a more diverse industry. Instead it's all about the 6 big 'glory' Oscars and really, probably, only lead actor/actress/director, which says it all.
this HTML class. Value is http://www.itsalawye
-
2 hours ago, Joel M said:
^
I think if Jobs had just undeperformed and barely made back its budget it will be a sure nomination for all the big awards except director. But it really flopped horribly both DOM and OS. People just didn't care for another Jobs movie.
That's not my point. The film isn't getting any noms anywhere but Winslet and Fassbender rightly are being recognised for their performances. Voters are properly separating the great acting from a film that didn't do well.
By contrast Damon's nice but very average performance is benefitting from Martian's succes. On its own it is a performance that any decent leading man could have given. Had the film flopped he would not be in the conversation.
It is a tribute to Winslet +Fassbender that their work shines out regardless of box office and is being recognised.
-
The panda: why is Steve Jobs weak? Fassbender and Winslet are being considered for their performances which are two of the strongest in their respective categories. In Fassbender 's case, arguably THE strongest. So far critics and voters from bodies such as Bafta, Sags, Aacta have all had the integrity to separate the performances from the poor box office and hopefully the Academy will too.
It's only certain media and bloggers who are pushing ie effectively campaigning for Damon's pleasant but unremarkable turn in the Martian. Same for Will Smith and Redmayne. The latter's PR team is running the ' consecutive Bafta/ Oscar' story in the UK press like it's a done deal.
It's all hype and I hope the Academy can rise above it like it did last year with Cotillard instead of Aniston.
Florence Foster Jenkins | August 12, 2016 | Stephen Frears
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
I saw it at the London premiere - I thought the man next to me was going to pass out from laughing so much! It is a very funny film with the right mix of warmth and personal tragedy too. Maryland does not phone it in. She's excellent but we expect excellence from her so much that this performance doesn't stand out from her other great ones. Any other actress would be gunning for awards on ( ironically).
The real revelation is Hugh Grant. My friend who saw it thought he actually outshone Meryl!