You know, every year when I think the Academy can’t suck anymore than it does by blowing off a great performance, they transcend themselves the following year.
How in the HÊLL can Richard Gere be bypassed for “Chicago” while John C. Reilly was nominated in the same category. Reilly was very moving in his portrayal, yes, but Gere was outstanding. And when a film gets thirteen nominations and Gere is ignored, that’s a slap in the face. For that matter, when Christopher Walken is nominated for his perfectly good, but not outstanding, work in “Catch Me If You Can” instead of Gere, it’s a kick in the crotch besides.
It was bad enough when the Academy ignored Jim Carrey in “The Truman Show” and then “Man in the Moon,” but this is truly bending over backwards.
PAD
• 
I’m still stunned that Gangs of New York was nominated for best picture and not Road to Perdition! Gangs was so incredibly bad…. While Road deserved far more that it got! This is definitely on par of Gere not getting nominated.
I’m surprised by the support you guys give Jim Carrey.
My opinion is the guy has the ability to be a good actor, but doesn’t have the guts to be a good actor. He has “insecurity” written all over him.
I actually enjoyed Majestic; Carrey did better than he ever has, but when he should risk emotional depth, he goes for the quick mug instead.
He does his thing well, but he doesn’t do anything else well… or won’t allow himself to.
Yes, I’m aware that Halle didn’t win for that film. Just seems to me that anyone with such a dismal performance in any film really shouldn’t rate an Oscar. But that’s just me.
Is that code for “I didn’t see Monster’s Ball, but I’m convinced she didn’t deserve the award”?
Gangs of New York is an affront to humanity, as far as I’m concerned.
My bad for thinking “Oliver!” beat “The Graduate”. That’s what I get for working off of memory instead of looking it up.
Ultimately, none of this Oscar stuff really matters. In fact, the only time I remember any award show making a difference was the year a mostly unknown Bonnie Raitt won four Grammies.
As for Halle Berry, I didn’t see the movie she was nominated for either, but I was shocked when I rewatched X-Men recently at what a terrible performance she gave.
As for “The Lord of the Rings”, my guess is it will get some kind of special achievement award somewhere down the line. Maybe a supporting actor award for Ian McKellan or Ian Holm, if the latter is in the third film to any extent.
Go John C. Reilly! He was better than Leo in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape” and better than Burt Reynolds in “Boogies Nights”, and yet they got the nominations.
Reilly HAS to win, he’s in THREE of the “Best Picture” films
Yes, I’m aware that Halle didn’t win for that film. Just seems to me that anyone with such a dismal performance in any film really shouldn’t rate an Oscar. But that’s just me.
Hey the guy who wrote Batman and Robin got an Oscar last year, so anything’s possible 🙂
David
So he’s this year’s Jim Broadbent (who costarred with three of last years best actress nominees)
OK, the last part of the above goes with the bit about Reily.
“As for “The Lord of the Rings”, my guess is it will get some kind of special achievement award somewhere down the line.”
It will get nothing. They had their window of opportunity last year when it was fresh.
Yes, I’m aware that Halle didn’t win for that film. Just seems to me that anyone with such a dismal performance in any film really shouldn’t rate an Oscar. But that’s just me.
That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. So I suppose that Jessica Lange should never get an award, no matter how great her performance might be, because of King Kong. Or Tom Hanks because of Bonfire of the Vanities. Or John Travolta because of Battlefield Earth. Or Humphrey Bogart because of Swing Your Lady or whatever that film was where he portrayed a vampire. Or Jack Lemmon because of Branaugh’s Hamlet.
For one thing, all actors with a career of any longevity have been in situations where they have been unable, either because of the size of the part or because of problems in the production or because of lack of direction or because of any number of factors, to give performances up to par with the best of their work. That’s like expecting the coin to turn up heads with every single flip. Does that take away from their talents? No, it means that things didn’t work for them that time.
For another thing, Storm in X-Men was not a starring part … it was a part of an ensemble; the real ‘character development’ parts went to Hugh Jackman, Anna Panquin, and Ian McKellan. In one of the docs on the X-Men 1.5 DVD, Bryan Singer admitted that the movie was a chapter in a series, and juicy stuff can’t really be expected for everyone in a movie with a cast of that size.
Posted by Malvito:
That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard. So I suppose that Jessica Lange should never get an award, no matter how great her performance might be, because of King Kong. Or Tom Hanks because of Bonfire of the Vanities. Or John Travolta because of Battlefield Earth. Or Humphrey Bogart because of Swing Your Lady or whatever that film was where he portrayed a vampire. Or Jack Lemmon because of Branaugh’s Hamlet.
Hey, this could be fun! Listing good actors/actresses in bad roles/films, that is!
A few more:
John Wayne in The Conqueror (as Genghis Khan, no less.)
Michael Caine in Jaws: The Revenge
Anyone else want to play?
Fun aside, the underlying point is still valid: claiming that an performer (or, indeed, anybody) should not be praised for their best work because they happened to have once done lesser work is unfair, unrealisitc, and ludicrous.
“Hey, this could be fun! Listing good actors/actresses in bad roles/films, that is!”
SON OF GOLDEN TURKEYS did just that when they gave the World’s Worst Actor award to Richard Burton. Not because he was a really bad actor per se, but that, given he could do some really great stuff, it was unforgiveable to see him looking so bad in other films.
As for Halle Berry, I realize she wasn’t the central character in X-MEN, but she still looked almost as though she’d wandered onto the wrong set and wasn’t sure what she was doing there. Even with inept direction (which I doubt was a factor here) this is inexcusable.
\\Yes, I’m aware that Halle didn’t win for that film. Just seems to me that anyone with such a dismal performance in any film really shouldn’t rate an Oscar. But that’s just me.
Posted by The StarWolf @ 02/12/2003 11:07 AM ET\\
By that logic no actor should ever win an Oscar. (The exception being first timers who have never done ANY acting in film or television. i.e. Anna Paquin in The Piano.) Name me an actor with any history and I’ll find a stinker of a movie in their past. Russell Crowe had Rough Magic, Meryl Streep had She-Devil and Death Becomes Her and Michael Caine has had many bad roles. (He once said “First of all, I choose the great roles, and if none of these come, I choose the mediocre ones, and if they don’t come, I choose the ones that pay the rent.”)
Fazhoul
“By that logic no actor should ever win an Oscar. (The exception being first timers who have never done ANY acting in film or television. i.e. Anna Paquin in The Piano.)”
And former comedians who take a stab at drama. Did Robin Williams have any real stinkers before Dead Poets Society? (I don’t mean flops — in that case, he blew it right out of the gate with Popeye. But his portrayal of the one-eyed one was brilliant. It just wasn’t something people cared about. Generally speaking, however, his performance was consistent in all his endeavors before DPS, and he got snubbed.
Steve Martin is another. Sure, some of his movies stunk, but he was always consistent in them. Nevermind that All of Me deserved an award in its own right, he’s done several movies that deserved some kind of professional recognition (though not on par with Williams, admittedly — he’s still funny in his movies, merely no longer frenetic).
Oscars are crap. They’re a bunch of áššhølëš who can be bought (see Titanic) and delight in snubbing people on an annual basis. Screw ’em.
Well, I stopped caring much about the Grammy’s or The Emmy’s when stuff I like keeps getting ignored time after time.
It’s almost like most of the voting audience and I don’t share many common tastes.
This is not to say that the people who do win don’t deserve to win what they do…..it is just that there are a lot more people who deserve recognition who don’t get it……
so this year I never even paid attention.
As others have probably noted, Gere dipped out on a Best Actor nom because Miramax changed its strategy. He was originally being pushed for Best Supporting Actor, but partway through the initial balloting process Miramax tweaked its ‘For Your Consideration’ ads to push him for Best Actor instead. I suspect his ballots got split between the two categories and the Golden Globes came too late to redress the problem.
Me, I’m happy, because it got Michael Caine a well deserved Best Actor nom. It also makes him one of only three men in Oscar history to have been nominated for acting awards in five consecutive decades, along with Olivier (30s-70s) and Nicholson (60s-00s). Not bad company to be keeping.
I grew tired of the Oscars years ago, coming to the conclusion that they were a very biased awards ceremony. Man, who needs it? What we need are some real people’s choice awards, not the Oscars.