I disagree with your interpretation, but, yes, I'll 'let it pass...'ITALIANO wrote:Not asked DIRECTLY, yet obviously implied! But ok, matthew, as the Latins said, "transeat"...
The Assassination of Jesse James: The Poll
Firstly, I'm not American, and secondly, when you write in bold letters 'YOUR question', I have a right to answer that it wasn't, infact, a question that I had asked...ITALIANO wrote:matthew, don't play with words, ok? Not with me. If you point out that what I'm saying isn't relevant to a certain question, you are obviously, though not directly (you are American I guess), inviting me to do so. And I already have.
That's interesting. I wasn't aware that I had asked a question.ITALIANO wrote:matthew wrote:That may be the case, but it's not relevant to the question of whether he has been placed in the correct category or not...
Exactly, it's relevant to something else. But if you want to know what I think about YOUR question, I've expressed my opinion in the recent past, maybe even in this thread.
-
dylanfan23
- Temp
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:46 pm
- Location: Belleville, NJ
i don't have a problem with hopkins in the lead, i have a lot less of a problem with putting a borderline lead performance in the lead catorgory than i do with an obvious lead in the supporting. You can argue that hopkins character had so much weight too it and his character was in our minds for the entire film...but regardless a supporting performance being forced to compete against lead performances in a lot better than an obvious lead now competing with real supporting perfermances.
Exactly, it's relevant to something else. But if you want to know what I think about YOUR question, I've expressed my opinion in the recent past, maybe even in this thread.matthew wrote:That may be the case, but it's not relevant to the question of whether he has been placed in the correct category or not...
Sabin wrote:when the dude is on-screen for maybe a half hour to an hour longer than anybody else in this epic film
Half an hour to an hour??? Watch the movie again - in the the first half he's often, if not mostly, off-screen, and then yes, in the end he survives Brad Pitt by maybe fifteen minutes, true. But as we should know very well by now, these groups - and not only the Academy - don't go to see a movie with an hourglass in their hands, and neither, pathetically, should we. But it's a tribute to Casey Affleck's excellent performance, of course - he gets from this board the kind of (sometimes tiresome) shocked reactions that in the past, with some much more evident cases of misplacing, would have been much more appropriate.
Edited By ITALIANO on 1199891245
ITALIANO wrote:Yes, but please, the Academy, and ALL the other groups, have committed worse crimes in their history than putting Casey Affleck in the Best Supporting Actor category!
That may be the case, but it's not relevant to the question of whether he has been placed in the correct category or not...
There has not and perhaps will never be a status defamation worse than Casey Affleck for Best Supporting Actor (except Anthony Hopkins for lead), when the dude is on-screen for maybe a half hour to an hour longer than anybody else in this epic film...but 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford' is the movie of the year and Casey Affleck gives the singe best performance I've seen by anybody this year, so I can't complain. Anything that gets people to see this beautiful film is A-OK by me.
As far as I'm concerned, this movie leaves 'Amadeus' in its stool
As far as I'm concerned, this movie leaves 'Amadeus' in its stool
"How's the despair?"