Tuesday, January 25, 2005
"Catwoman" gets 11 nominations!
The 2004 Oscar nominees were announced this morning. There was no love for my favorite movie of the year, Garden State. Oh, well. I've been saying it for months now - believe the hype about Jamie Foxx's performance in Ray. One movie that I've been wanting to see is Sideways, but now my appetite is really whetted. Million Dollar Baby holds little appeal to me, but I may have to check it out. I've yet to check out The Aviator. Lastly, Fahrenheit 911 didn't receive one nomination, not even best documentary. Maybe there's still hope for Hollywood, after all.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Only two nominations for Eternal Sunshine?? Two?! I can't believe the Academy has overlooked Jim Carrey yet *again* -- what's this, the third time? Come on, you came around for Mork! And Ace Ventura is *slightly* less obnoxious.
Where's the love?
I missed "Eternal Sunshine" when it was in the theaters and have yet to rent it. But it's on my list.
I agree: Jim Carrey has been passed over more times than a joint at a Phish concert.
Of course I've only seen a couple of those films (as usual) since my taste in films isn't usually what the Oscars like. Garden State should have been on there, though.
Did y'all hear about the Razzies awards? I just wrote a story about it for my show... The highlights: Nominated for worst pic: Catwoman (7 noms total), Alexander (6 noms total). Other worst pics: "Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2," "Surviving Christmas" and "White Chicks."
Berry nominated for worst actress... Ben Affleck nominated for worst actor (Jersey Girl). His stiff competition in that catagory includes President Bush... for his riveting performance in "Fahrenheit 9-11."
I had just read the list of Razzie nominees. There's a lot deserving movies listed, but c'mon - Bush, Condi, Rummy? I feel that these "awards" should be used to shit on the terrible performances coming out of Hollywood, not to make political statements. If there was any justice, they'd be replaced with the cast of "Anacondas" (which didn't get a single nom).
Glad to see they at least had the common sense not to nominate 911....I still haven't seen it...I refuse to financially support that moron in any way...
It really was a stupid gamble by Moore/Miramax to broadcast his movie, thus making it ineligible for Best Documentary. First it doesn't change the outcome of the election and now it won't win an Oscar.
I've seen none of the nominated movies, and frankly I don't care to see any of them, but by God if Martin Scorsese doesn't get his due this year, I just plain give up. "The Aviator" could very well be a big pile of dung (and it looks like it might be) but to not give the guy that made "Raging Bull" and "GoodFellas" an Oscar is just blasphemous. Sympathy vote? Yeah, it is. So what? The man's a legend.
You of all people haven't seen "The Aviator?" 16:9, you let me down.
It's been playing at the art-house cinema down by the river since Christmas, but I just can't get myself in the mood to see it. I'm just sick of Marty losing to actors-cum-directors: Redford in '81, Costner (Costner!?!?!?) in '91. If I were a betting man, I'd add Clint to that list. Eastwood's got it locked up, I'd guess.
Please turn in your Scorsese Fanatic membership card. As for his chances, never underestimate the power of The Eyebrows.
Also, don't forget that he lost to a child molestor in 2002.
Woohoo - Gay Olympics!!! And 911 is not nominated so I don't have to boycott. I, too, have been remiss in see the nominated films. I am dying to see Sideways, I think I'll make a point to see it next weekend. Man, seeing movies by myself sucks. Oh well, it's better than sitting next to Shamrock as he notes the historical/military/now medical inaccuracies of all films, TV shows, and even radio commercials.
Pointing out historical inaccuracies is a blessing...and a curse.
I need to call you out here, KPMD. Shamrock might note historical inaccuracies, but I have no doubt that you will sit through "Sideways" and nitpick about every little wine detail. Why you ask? Because right after you took your little trip to Napa, you chided me for improperly storing my $8 bottle of Reisling. He's a Civil War snob, you're a Cabernet snob. So there.
Pre-service, sure. But is every bottle of white in your local wine merchant chilled? No. They're shelved just like any bottle of red. Now going from fridge-to-rack-to-fridge is bad, but leaving it on the rack until you're ready to drink isn't a problem.
And who do you think I got that annoying wine snobbery from? Shamrock is like Frasier and Niles Crane all rolled into one.
"There's too much in the glass. It won't taste right!"
OK, now I GOTS to put my $0.02 in:
For long-term wine storage (say 6 months or more), all wines (white or red) should be at about 55 degrees. So the way it's stored at most wine shops is OK because they turn over their inventory more often than that. If you're just buying and drinking than it is OK to store at room temp (but not in the kitchen where it gets hot). Also, if you buy crap - it's going to taste like crap - even if you stored it between the bare breasts of an 18 year old virgin before you drank it.
Fine. I'll throw out the wine. But I'm keeping the virgin (she also serves as a humidor).
So, I need to either keep the A/C on 55 degrees year round, turn the temperature on the fridge UP, or buy a wine fridge?. Maybe doctors can afford that crap, but not us peons.
Oh, and are there really 18 year old virgins still? I thought they all died off. Huh...
Just drink it quickly, and then you don't have to worry. The $8 bottles (of which I have several) don't need to be aged...
I think the ultimate solution to 16:9s dilemma is to just drink more often. It helps pass the time. In regards to the virgin, I didn't say she was hot - which would explain virginal status at 18 (or she's "saving it", which we all know means "lying about being a virgin").
I've got a nice Perrin Reserve Cotes du Rhone 2000 I think I'll open...either that or a Two Buck Chuck red.
It ended up being the Charles Shaw red. No use to waste good wine on "the Amazing Race."
Sideways is really good! But I only saw two movies last year, so I can't compare it to the others. But I think you'll like it.
Thanks for the tip. I'm really looking forward to seeing it tomorrow.
What is "Sideways" about? I don't think I know that film.
Per Yahoo Movies:
Miles Faymond (Giamatti), a divorced middle school teacher and failed novelist, and his altar-bound friend Jack (Church) take a wine-tasting trip in California, pondering questions about their directions in life.
Oh. Well, looks like I'll be watching "Eurotrip" again. ,,Kein Schwein findet uns in Bratislava!!"
Post a Comment