Potential Oscar Candidates for 2002

Oh, exceptions surely exist (although no matter what they are technically, I never think of the Coen Brothers' movies as Indy films)...but on the whole, I dislike them.

I have to say,if Smashmouth's song from Shrek,wins anything...I'm going ballistic! I don't care what else happens...that stupid song better not even get nominated! As for Julia Roberts,let's not speak of her anymore...I'm getting ill.

That song is just too old...I can't believe they used it in "Shrek." They were about a year too late on that one. I can't believe it was used in "Rat Race," too. That was was way over-used in terms of movies.

The Smashmouth song from Shrek can't get a nomination since it's a cover. I assume you meant their version of The Monkees hit "I'm a Believer" and not their own "All Star". Neither is elligible.

Only original songs are elligible for Oscars, which is why hits like Whitney Houston's "I will Always Love You" from The Bodyguard and last year's "I am a Man of Constant Sorrow" from O Brother, Where Art Thou? weren't in the running, much less winners.

__________________
"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

Before it comes out I'm gonna say The Count of Monte Cristo for best costume, or at least a nomination.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

Oh,okay.I didn't know that covers of songs weren't elligible.That's a relief.I was stressin' that one ever scince I started hearing it over and over on the radio.Who originally sang "I am a Man of Constant Sorrow"?

Maybe none of you have seen Enemy at the gates. This is my favourite film for most of the categories. Unfortunetly I haven't seen a lot of pictures you have been talking about. Anyway, these are my favourites:

-Film:
Enemy at the gates (Winner),Bridget Jones's Diary,AI,Memento and Schrek
-Director:
Jean-Jaques Annaud for Enemy... (Winner), Steven Spielberg, Alejandro Amenabar for the Others, Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn for The Pledge.
-Actor:
Jude Law (Winner), Haley Joel Osment, Guy Pierce, Jack Nicholson for The Pledge.
-Actrees:
Renée Zellweger and Nicole Kidman for the Others... of course (must be one Oscar for each one), Rachel Weisz for Enemy..., Charlize Theron for The Yards, Cate Blanchett for The Gift.
-Supporting Actor:
Joaquin Phoenix (Winner for The Yards), Hugh Grant, Jude Law, Ed Harris and Joseph Fiennes
-Supporting Actrees:
Fionnula Flannagan (Winner for The Others), Carrie Ann Moss
-Original Screenplay:
Memento and Enemy at the Gates (one of each one), The Others, A.I and Jail and Silent Bob strike back.
-Adapted Screenplay:
Bridget Jones's Diary

You must have really liked Enemy at the Gates. BTW, welcome aboard. Hope you stick around for awhile....

__________________
"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

Bridget Jone's Diary was a great adaptation..and film. Loved it!

I'm pretty sure both "Moulin Rouge" and "Artificial Intelligence" will be going head to head for Best Film.

It wouldn't suprise me to see Haley Joel Osmont take out the Best Actor Gong for "AI". I don't want him too, but despite the uneven and often pithy film, the kid shone ever so brightly.

I'd like to see "Mullohand Drive" up there.

But as I've said before, it wouldn't suprise me if the Academy picks crap to win, snobs Indies, snobs art, snobs decency and rewards commerical mainstream junk.

I mean, she won it this year.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

They'll probably snop the Indies because the Indies are made by snobs. Anyway, I don't think there's any chance of A.I. being nominated for Best Picture. I'll be shocked outta my socks if gets that nomination...sure as hell doesn't deserve it. And dude: lighten up on mainstream films. Maybe you don't realize it, but movies are so much more fun when you don't look as everything as stereotypical and mainstream crap. I see a stereotypical movie: I couldn't care less, so long as I enjoy it. I don't need it to be new, fresh, or emotionally moving. Neither do most people.

Mainstream is mainstream for a reason: BECAUSE PEOPLE GO TO SEE IT! Mainstream == popular. Popular == liked by many. What's wrong with that? 'Tis a virtue, not a flaw. Oh, and I don't care what anyone else says: Terminator 2 and "The Matrix" ARE art...they are works of art. So is "There's Something About Mary." But, some people (I'm not saying it's any of you...though it probably does apply to some people here) insist on only really enjoying movies that touch you, move you, or some other phrase that sounds mildly dirty.

To each his own.
That's all I have to say.

Indie films aren't made by snobs.
The snobs are the people who don't give the Indie's a chance.

It was a JOKE, man. Anyway, that's not snobbish at all. Snobbish is to act as if you're superior, or classier, than someone else, based on something like raw opinion. That's why I tend to see Indie-lovers as snobbier, on average, than most movie lovers...a lot of them look down on action flicks, and mainstream movies, as if they're stupid, and for idiots...which is obviously a snobby thing to think and say. Ignoring an Indy flick is not snobbish. Acting all superior about it would be...which is something I don't see. I do not get the Indie thing: big budgets == bad. CGI == evil. Action == stupid movie. These are assumptions I see people make all the time, that, frankly, don't make any sense.

Now, not to single you out, but you obviously have a beef with anything mainstream/popular: why?

I'm not speaking on behalf of Silver Bullet here, but to assume that everyone is hip to the mainstream is being prejudice (couldn't think of a better word).

To be someone who goes outside of the norm or what's "popular" is being unique, creative, just because it's the norm/popular doesn't mean you have to like it. I mean yeah I like a lot of the popular movies, but I'm not gonna like everything that is considered popular just because it's generally accepted everywhere. I like some of the less accepted movies just because they were a work of art to those who made it. Steve N., doesn't like Gladiator, his choice. I give him a hard time about it only because it's fun. So just because what's mainstream isn't accepted by everyone doesn't mean that those wanting to go outside of the norm should be shunned or outcasts.

Anyways, I just get flustered when people on here talk about how someone is not going with what's mainstream. Everyone has their taste in art, entertainment, etc., to each his own.

Surely...but, on the other side of that coin, you've got people who dislike anything that's popular, simply because that's the way they are. They'll never follow the crowd, for fear of being trendy, or some desire to always be unique, or some other such thing. You know the type I'm talking about: they've always got their own "thing" that's INTENTIONALLY different from everyone else. People who are different just to be different...or who have some bias or prejudice, and base all of their non-mainstream views off of that, etc. Again, not accusing Silver of that...but I thought it worth mentioning that you can definitely go too far in either direction.

I don't like a movie because it's popular...but rather, I'll go see a movie because it's popular, because, if THAT many people seem to like it, there's a solid chance I will, too. It's a simple method that rarely lets me down.

I don't have any problem with mainstream films.
I have loved most of the Best Pictures in the last decade, I see films at the cinema once a week.

I hate the mainstream attitude.
I hate the way something is rewarded for having CGI IN it. Not even GOOD CGI. But just because it does. Not CGI in general. You'd be suprised how many of my Indie friends use CGI. "Gladiator" had people wearing WRIST WATCHES in it. But it was made on a big budget and it was violent, like an olden film. So it won BEST PICTURE. That is shoddy and crud.
It wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't a good film.
It wasn't the best film. But because it cost a lot to make and it made a lot of money doesn't make it fantastic.

I'm not saying something needs to be made on a shoestring to be great either. There is a LOT of Indie Crap. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't get a fair run -- studio produced crap does, doesn't it?

It's not the films, it's the flipping attitude.

My comment was just saying that the academy have taken to rewarding things for making a lot of money, or costing a lot to make. I don't think Titanic was the best film in its year. I don't think Gladiator was deserving. I think La Vita e Bella and Traffic should have won respectivley.

And once again:
To each his own.

Well have you ever wondered what you may be missing? There are SO MANY amazing movies that fall through the cracks with the way the studio and marketing systems are set up now. Being John Malkovich and Rushmore, two of the best recent movies, opened only in art houses. It's just not fair. Studios like to spend money on things that are proven - from a business standpoint this is understandable, but from a moviegoer's standpoint, it's unfair (and I won't even go into from an artist's standpoint). In the 1970s, for example, movies like Mean Streets and Taxi Driver were financed by studios and marketed as the "mainstream". Now, Wild Wild West and Gladiator are. I strongly believe that most "Hollywood" movies nowadays are more about making money than being entertaining. For example, if the first Toy Story was a flop, Monsters Inc. would never have been made, regardless of its entertainment value.

I don't turn up my nose at "mainstream" movies, but when I see things that either insult my intelligence, memory, or senses, I get impatient. I've seen things blow up so many times and I've seen so many movies with talking killers and out-of-left-field plot developments and cars flipping upside down that it's all very boring to me. I like movies that show me something new.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

I agree.
I would shake you buy the hand if the modem would allow me to.

Oh...I so agree with this. There were far better movies out that year. We already discussed this, but I just had to say," You took the words right out of my mouth." Billy Elliot was better.

Steve: sometimes I wonder if I'm missing much, but ya know what? I really don't have time to go combing through tons of Indie films. Aside from that, I just don't tend to like them much. I don't dig most of that artistic junk...no offense. Just ain't my bag.

It's perfectly "fair." This reminds me of some starving artist mad at the world for not paying them money to be creative. Indie directors can make good, profitable films. It does happen. Maybe some of them should focus on making something people want to say, and will pay to say, as opposed to things that make themselves happy. If they don't do that, then there's no ground to stand on when they say it's "not fair."

There is no standpoint that you need to take. Look at it as if you're not a moviegoer, businessman, or artist. Like it or not, we basically ALL have to be businesspeople to some degree. Successful people are usually artistic in their own way. When an artist tries to ignore money and business-side of the world, they fail. Many great artists throughout history are still remembered today because, aside from simply being very creative, they knew how the world worked, and they knew they couldn't just paint whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and have people love them and pay them for it.

If what we have now is fair, then what WOULD be fair? Indie films getting in first-run theatres? Who decides which ones get in? There are obviously tons of them vying for the honor.

Silver: I see what you're saying, but there really isn't a "maintreaam attitude" as far as I know. I've never heard of anything getting praised for bad CGI, either. The Mummy Returns was praised by most people I know as a fun action flick...yet I can't recall even one person who didn't think the CGI at the end was crap.