Golden Globe nominees

BEST PICTURE, DRAMA
A Beautiful Mind, In the Bedroom, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Man Who Wasn't There, Mullholland Drive

BEST PICTURE, COMEDY or MUSICAL
Bridget Jones's Diary, Gosford Park, Legally Blonde, Moulin Rouge, Shrek

BEST DIRECTOR
Robert Altman (Gosford Park), Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind), Peter Jackson (The Fellowship of the Ring), Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge), David Lynch (Mulholland Drive), Steven Spielberg (A.I. - Artificial Intelligence)

BEST ACTOR, DRAMA
Russell Crowe (A Beautiful Mind), Will Smith (Ali), Kevin Spacey (The Shipping News), Billy Bob Thornton (The Man Who Wasn't There), Denzel Washington (Training Day)

BEST ACTRESS, DRAMA
Halle Barry (Monster's Ball), Judi Dench (Iris), Nicole Kidman (The Others), Sissy Spacek (In the Bedroom), Tilda Swinton (The Deep End)

BEST ACTOR, COMEDY or MUSICAL
Gene Hackman (The Royal Tenenbaums), Hugh Jackman (Kate & Leopold), Ewan McGregor (Moulin Rouge), John Cameron Mitchell (Hedwig and the Angry Inch), Billy Bob Thornton (Bandits)

BEST ACTRESS, COMEDY or MUSICAL
Thora Birch (Ghost World), Cate Blanchett (Bandits), Nicole Kidman (Moulin Rouge), Reese Witherspoon (Legally Blonde), Renee Zellweger (Bridget Jones' Diary)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Jim Broadbent (Iris), Steve Buscemi (Ghost World), Hayden Christensen (Life as a House), Ben Kingsley (Sexy Beast), Jude Law (A.I. - Artificial Intelligence), Jon Voight (Ali)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind), Cameron Diaz (Vanilla Sky), Helen Mirren (Gosford Park), Maggie Smith (Gosford Park), Marisa Tomei (In the Bedroom), Kate Winslet (Iris)

BEST SCREENPLAY
Joel & Ethan Coen (The Man Who Wasn't There), Julian Fellowes (Gosford Park), Akiva Goldsmith (A Beautiful Mind), David Lynch (Mullholland Drive), Christopher Nolan (Memento)

Attachments

     

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I'm happy enough...though I'd argue that at least one LOTR actor deserved a nomination for a supporting role...heck, there were so MANY of them. This year does seem less mainstream, though, doesn't it? Or is it just me? When I think of the Golden Globes, I think of movies like "Independence Day" taking home some of the major awards. More of a "People's Choice" kind of deal...but this list seems less mainstream, but not overly so.

It's just you.

If anything The Golden Globes often get to be a little LESS mainstream than The Oscars, if only because they have so many more categories and potential slots to fill (Drama and Comedy/Musical being split up). Just last year they nominated such movies for Best Picture as O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Best in Show, Sunshine, Billy Elliot, and Wonder Boys, along with many of those that got Oscar nods (Gladiator won Drama, Almost Famous won Comedy/Musical). Some of the performances they nominated last year were Bjork for Dancer in the Dark, Clooney for O Brother (he even won in Comedy/Musical), John Cusack for High Fidelity, Renee Zellweger for Nurse Betty, and Tracey Ullman for Small Time Crooks.

And for the record, The Globes didn't nominate Independence Day for ANY awards, and certainly didn't give it any (what are they, MTV?!?).

The Golden Globes are voted on and given out by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which has about 90 members.


I found it a bit disapponting that Memento's only nod was for the screenplay. I think it should at least be in there for Nolan's directon and Guy Pearce's knockout and difficult performance. And Amelie did get nominated for Foeign Language Film, but didn't get any in the acting or directing categories.

Oh well.

That is a suck about Memento. The movie deserves at least 3 if not more nods.

I really can't think of anything to list for a nominee. Holden pretty much summed up what I think should be given a nod.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

I'd agree with you on Nolan. Anything who can keep that big sloppy mess of scenes coherent deserves something. I know I'm thinking of some non-Oscar awards show when I talk about more mainstream awards. Is it the People's Choice Awards, or the Blockbuster Awards, or something? All I can recall is one show that seems to nominate more commercially successful/publicly widespread movies, though I don't remember specifics.

I think it's a bit odd to split up the "Best Picture" category. Every awards show needs ONE giant award that everyone covets. Doesn't feel like such a big deal when there are two of them.

It keeps them from getting a full-on big head.

I kind of like that The Globes differentiate between drama and comedy. Many people, including those in Hollywood itself, tend to undervalue comedy. They all know that famous saying, "Dying is easy, comedy is hard", and they know damn well not just anyone can do it, yet when it comes time to hand out Oscars, comic work usually gets the shaft - especially when it comes to the so-called "Best Picture". Dividing the awards allows to acknowledge both ends of the spectrum equally.


BTW, I forgot to mention in my first post that this year's recipient of the Cecil B. DeMille Award for Lifetime Achievement is Harrison Ford.

I think the Oscars, for example, would do better to simply correct their valuation error on comedies, than they would to create another category for it. I see its value...but I find it to be a less than ideal solution. A way of letting them "keep" their odd bias against comedies.

Yeah, I'm all for an intellectual desegregation of the arts in a perfect world too, but we know it ain't a perfect world.

Of course I wish The Globes and The Oscars would just look at a movie - ANY movie, and see if thay can evaluate which one is really "the best" (whatever that means) each year: drama, comedy, science-fiction, adventure, animation, what have you. Unfortunately, that ain't gonna happen. A certain kind of movie is much more likely going to be acclaimed by The A.M.P.A.S., and I guess that's just the way it's gonna be.

That's part of why nobody really cares and The Oscars don't really mean much, except to trivia nuts like me.

Yeah, I realize that. I'm being a little overly idealistic, no doubt. My rage concerning The Academy's consistently dramatic Best Picture nominees knows no bounds. I do care about The Oscars though...and not for any potential trivia. They give us the biggest awards show each other. Something that universally hailed as the standard will always matter to me. If LOTR, for example, takes home a Golden Globe, but not an Oscar, it's a completely hollow victory, IMO.

Out of the Best Picture: Drama, selections, I'd go with LOTR.

Out of the Best Picture: Musical/Comedy, selections, I'd go with Bridget Jones's Diary. That movie was really, really good. Although, I think Moulin Rouge, will no doubt, nab it...because the Golden Globes are all about artistic merit.

I think Tom Cruise should have been nominated for best actor.. oh well, maybe the oscars won't forget..

Memento needed the best picture, actor, director, screenplay, supporting actor nominations but only has the screenplay! argh..

I think this time year there are less huge commercial films nominated and more smaller films (gosford, man who wasn't there, mullhollend drive, etc..)


BEST ACTOR, DRAMA
Russell Crowe (A Beautiful Mind), Kevin Spacey

is Guy Pearce got the nod for memento, it would be the LA Confidential trio.. if he gets it at the oscar awards:

99: Spacey
00: Crowe
01: Pearce

That would be awesome...but are you nominating Spacey for The Shipping News* not released yet, or K-Pax?

LOL! Tell me you're joking!

F--k the Golden Globes, and f--k the Oscars. Ok, I guess I like them. THey're fun. Yay. I like to argue about them & look at the clothes. But actually accepting them as valid awards? Bah! There's no such thing as 'best', only what we favor. So even arguing about them is an exercise in futility. But we still do it because it's fun. I think. I dunno.

What I do know is that "artistic merit" has nothing to do with anything in awards shows. If studio executives flew in the hollywood foreign press and got them all hookers and nice hotel rooms and free alcohol, they'd select The Mummy Returns if the execs asked them to. Luckily, the foreign press aren't complete idiots, so they actually try to honor good movies. Not "artistic" ones, but good ones. If they wanted to honor "artistic" movies, Waking Life would be up for everything on the bill. They want movies that make money and attempt to break out of the assembly line. I can't f--k with that, but I do take issue with saying something is about "art", when it's really about money.

I don't give a crap what a movie or awards show is about. I don't care if the motivation, Steve, for a movie is money. If Terminator 2 was made for money, GOOD. More power to them. I liked the movie...regardless of whether Ah-nuld and Cameron did it for dough, or to try to inpspire, I liked the movie. That's what matters. I'll also state, yet again, that there shouldn't be even the TINIEST amount of shame in wanting to make a movie so that you can make money. It is a living for some people, after all.

Yeah, but I'm sorry, movies are too valuable an art form to be used as a way to make a quick buck. I hate it that the ONLY reason a certain movie is made is for the money. I hate, hate, hate it. I mean, I can like a movie that's made for money, but there has to be scenes that actually do inspire and connect. Movies that don't have the time for that, like The Mummy Returns, make me sick. How dare someone use such a lovely and wonderful medium just to get rich off of?

I can like fluff. I like Tomb Raider. But there's a difference between Tomb Raider and The Mummy Returns - it's the inspiration. Tomb Raider has life to it - you can tell Angelina is having a blast. Same with Spy Kids. But movies like the Mummy 2 are genre exercises. No one is having fun behind it. People are too concerned with their paycheck to actually engage the audience, and I see that & feel cheated.

6 corporations own Hollywood. Isn't that in the least bit disturbing to you? Everything has become an industry - there's very few movies that even ATTEMPT to become "art" anymore, because capitalism has bled into the art form. Movies like The Mummy Returns weren't made in the 70's and 60's, because there was actually a focus on the artistic aspects of cinema, as opposed to the monetary aspects of it. It just saddens me, that's all.

No, capitalism is a wonderful thing...it makes me glad. Very glad. It is a system where those who are clever, or work hard, or both, are rewarded. The most successful people in a capitalistic society are those that serve others the best, basically. That doesn't disturb me in the least.

The problem here is that you say you don't like movies with money as the motivation because they don't pay enough attention to making the movie good. What you really don't like then, are movies where people don't pay enough attention to to make them good. The reason it wasn't good is secondary, but even then, I don't think it's at all fair to say that this movie was bad, or that movie wasn't good, simply because of money. You really don't know. There are probably 100 reasons you didn't like it. In this example, though, I liked the movie. Brenden Fraser wasn't having fun? Wha?

What's wrong with what we have now? 30 years ago we'd have good movies, and we'd have bad movies. The same is true today. The reasons behind their goodness, or badness, are secondary to the movies themselves.

How dare someone try to make money with a movie? I don't understand that logic. What would you say to a remarkably talented artist, for example, who painted in a way that inspired millions, despite the fact that he himself hated painting, and only did it because he brought him wealth. Would you dislike his paintings? Would they be any less beautiful? You may dislike his attitude (though I wouldn't), but that's no reason to "hate, hate, hate" the end result.

Movies are not some collective art form that is universally tainted or held upwards with each addition to the stack. "The Mummy Returns" is not an insult to movies. It's just a movie...one that I, and plenty of other people, happened to enjoy. You didn't enjoy it...but it is not a disgrace. It does not shame the art form. The only things that can shame an art form, IMO, in any way whatsoever, are immoral or genuinely offensive things, basically.

Let me tell ya something: money gets things done. People plant trees out of their own sense of obligation to help the world around them, but the tree-logging companies plant them a hell of a lot faster...because that's how they make money.

Same thing with movies: with millions of people flocking to theaters, you get some side-effects: some people start to recognize movies as a valuable commercial market, and they churn out movies...let's say, bad ones, by most people's standards. People tend to spot these more as time goes on, naturally. Meanwhile, however, other people invest TENS (or even HUNDREDS) of millions of dollars into movies that end up being genuinely good. If we didn't have so much money to be made...if we didn't have all this financial incentive, then movies like "Titanic" and "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" would've never found their way to the big screen.

I'm annoyed by people who make bad movies. Not by people who create movies to make money, because those types make both good and bad movies, depending on the specifics.

didnt the AFI put memento in their top ten of 2001 list?

their special is one jan 5

__________________
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me

Would have to check on that one mecurdius.

Personally, a lot of good people got snubbed this year. However, Sadie was right on the new Sean Penn movie I Am Sam, it's been nominated, and I heard that it's probably going to get an Oscar nod, too.

Jim Carrey didn't get a nom for The Majestic. Why? He has obviously left his stupid-funny act behind, why can't he gain respect with his new-found acting?

This may seem like a silly question but why are there films there that haven't even been released yet? Like Will Smith for Ali, which I predict will tank at the box office.