Page 1 of 2
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:00 am
by criddic3
OscarGuy wrote:even believe that's why Russell Crowe didn't win for The Insider.
I thought it was A Beautiful Mind that he missed out on the win for. The movie won Picture, Director and Supp. Actress. Wasn't it that year when he pinned the BAFTA producer to the wall? After all, even though he did get wide support among critics for The Insider, he was still seen as a fairly new star in America (despite prominent roles in The Quick & the Dead, Virtuosity and L.A. Confidential). If his bad-boy image prevented him from winning in 1999, how did he manage to win the following year for Gladiator?
(Mister Tee) I think, as most are saying, it was the combination of career affection
I think the Academy completely missed an opportunity that year. They wasted their sentimental vote on Arkin when they could have given it to Peter O'Toole. Both gave less-than-career-best performances, but O'Toole was on nod # 8 and Arkin on career nod # 3. It would have been one thing if they passed on O'Toole, but to give a sentimental win to someone else in the same year just seems cruel. What's worse is that Arkin wasn't better than Murphy, either.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:17 pm
by kaytodd
I will not waste ninety minutes of my life on No Strings Attached but I do not think it will have any negative effect on anyone's career, including Natalie's. It's reviews are nowhere near as universally bad as Norbit's (but I thoroughly enjoyed Rex Reed's review). And all of the reviews I have read have singled out Natalie for giving a performance that rose above the pedestrian (not putrid) material. As for Ashton...the best thing I have read about his performance are his looks. The supporting cast, including Kline, has gotten good notices in many reviews. This is especially true of Greta Gerwig. I have yet to be impressed by her but, for some reason, I think she will soon give a performance that will make me go WOW. She came close in Greenberg.
And you watch...this film will do very well this weekend and will be a hit, whether it deserves it or not. This strikes me as harmless fun with two stars who are very easy on the eyes.
Edited By kaytodd on 1295659079
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:31 pm
by The Original BJ
Mister Tee wrote:The Original BJ wrote:Mister Tee wrote:Am I wrong, or is Murphy the only one to win the three televised prizes and still lose the Oscar?
Julie Christie. Sniffle.
I'm sorry to have reminded either of us.
Maybe it doesn't count -- the Globes weren't televised that year!
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:00 pm
by Mister Tee
The Original BJ wrote:Mister Tee wrote:Am I wrong, or is Murphy the only one to win the three televised prizes and still lose the Oscar?
Julie Christie. Sniffle.
I'm sorry to have reminded either of us.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:58 pm
by The Original BJ
Mister Tee wrote:Am I wrong, or is Murphy the only one to win the three televised prizes and still lose the Oscar?
Julie Christie. Sniffle.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:35 pm
by Mister Tee
Dismissing Alan Arkin like that is a function of age. For a period from the mid-60s through early 70s, Arkin was very much a front-rank American actor -- winning the NY Critics' prize and heavily contendiing for the best actor Oscar in '68 (the one unexpectedly won by Cliff Robertson), starring other well-regarded efforts like The Russians Are Coming and Popi. The critical failure of Catch 22 pretty much ended his run, but many Academy voters were certainly aware of his past status.
I think, as most are saying, it was the combination of career affection, personal dislike of Murphy and lukewarm feelings toward Dreamgirls that paved the way for the upset. Am I wrong, or is Murphy the only one to win the three televised prizes and still lose the Oscar?
Oh, and the best supporting actor that year was the disgracefully un-nominated Michael Sheen in The Queen.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:33 pm
by OscarGuy
While Annette Bening could never be seen as an actress of Meryl Streep caliber, but if the Academy can resist giving Streep a third Oscar for so long, they can probably wait for Bening. Besides, since she's had so many nominations, they may think she'll give them something even better at a later date. Think how long it took Kate Winslet to win an Oscar.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:25 pm
by Sabin
I think Natalie Portman is still probably a safe bet. Regardless of the quality of her upcoming work, she is the central, driving figure of a very successful film that people like more than whatever competition she will be up against. And regardless of the quality of her upcoming work, people have been waiting for her to do something of this calibre (whether you like this film or not) for some time. They have been waiting to be this proud of Natalie Portman since the mid-90's. Annette Bening, though good/better, is a different story. It doesn't feel like her moment. It does feel like Natalie Portman's moment, and all these films are going to rake it in. It's not her Norbit. She's just playing the industry game.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:34 pm
by ITALIANO
But Alan Arkin was a much-respected actor. I wouldn't say that he was exactly considered "overdue", and he wasn't as famous or as popular as Eddie Murphy was (and of course he had never been a star of Lauren Bacall-level), but he was certainly seen - by film critics - as one of the finest American actors. And definitely, as you point out, a nicer person than Eddie Murphy.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:30 pm
by OscarGuy
I think there were a combination of factors. First of all, all Norbit did was remind voters while they had never nominated him before. He did terrible movies that weren't a stretch for a comedian. What they did know, however, was that he wasn't a nice guy. His reputation alone may have had a bigger influence over voters than his career. Some even believe that's why Russell Crowe didn't win for The Insider.
Let's also remember that the Academy had a lukewarm reaction to Dreamgirls, unlike the other groups. So, it may just have been that not enough voters liked the film or his performance enough to vote for him.
There are probably plenty of other factors going against him and I feel it was more a vote against Murphy than a vote for Arkin because while Arkin was very well known, he was hardly known to have delivered Oscar-caliber performances in the past. And if someone like Lauren Bacall can't win a "career" Oscar just for being famous, then I don't believe any of the talk that Arkin was somehow overdue.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:52 pm
by Big Magilla
Personally I thought Adam Beach's non-nominated performance in Flags of Our Fathers should have won the category that year.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:00 pm
by ITALIANO
Yes, I wouldn't say that Norbit is the reason why Eddie Murphy lost. Or at least not the main reason. By early 2007, Murphy had done his share of dreadful movies, so his reputation couldn't be completely saved by his comeback in a prestige picture like Dreamgirls, especially as Dreamgirls itself - can we say it finally now? - wasn't much liked by the Academy. I wouldn't even say that they liked Alan Arkin's performance much better; what they certanly liked better was Arkin as a man, Arkin's career and, last but not least, Arkin's movie (if only because it was nominated for Best Picture).
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:54 am
by rolotomasi99
Damien wrote:rolotomasi99 wrote:Alan Arkin gave the superior performance
Alan Arkin sucked.
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
Why does it anger you so much that Murphy lost? Why are you promoting such a ridiculous theory that he lost because of NORBIT? Do you also believe the Tomei/Palance rumor?
Of the five nominees, I thought Jackie Earl Haley was the best. However, my favorite supporting performance of the year was actually Matt Damon in THE DEPARTED. Neither Murphy nor Arkin gave a great performance, but they both won awards. Go figure.
Julie Christie won awards for AWAY FROM HER from SAG, the Golden Globes, the BFCA, and a number of other critics groups, yet she lost the Oscar to Marion Cotillard. What horrible film was Christie in which cost her the Oscar?
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:06 am
by Damien
rolotomasi99 wrote:Alan Arkin gave the superior performance i
Alan Arkin sucked. And the Hollywood Foreign Press and SAG, which both gave their awards to Eddie Murphy would also disagree with your subjective statement.
Edited By Damien on 1295553451
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:29 am
by rolotomasi99
Damien wrote:From the first time I saw the hideous trailer several weeks ago, I began wondering whether this film would be Natalie Portman's Norbit. A piece of crap that intrudes upon the Oscar voting period and convinces people they really don't want that film's star to have an Oscar.
Can we please shut that rumor down here and now? Eddie Murphy losing the Oscar because of NORBIT is as ridiculous as Marisa Tomei winning the Oscar because Jack Palance read the wrong name.
Alan Arkin gave the superior performance in a movie the Academy clearly liked better. Plus, if you are a believer in the whole winning because it is "their time", Arkin clearly had more support to finally win over the unpopular Murphy.
As for Natalie Portman, NO STRINGS ATTACHED may be bad, but it is no NORBIT. Even though I do not think it cost him an Oscar, Murphy had far more to be ashamed of than Portman. The only person who can defeat her is Bening, and it will be because Bening gave an equally great performance.
Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1295537486