It's just the silly outcry over his lack of an Oscar by audiences over the past few years, like he's the persecuted messiah of acting, gravely suffering for his ideals.Caramel Frappe said:snipCasual Shinji said:snip
It's just the silly outcry over his lack of an Oscar by audiences over the past few years, like he's the persecuted messiah of acting, gravely suffering for his ideals.Caramel Frappe said:snipCasual Shinji said:snip
Not entirely. I think early Nicholson relied less on his scenery-chewing ability, entertaining as it is. It's been a while since I saw Cukcoo's Nest, but I seem to remember his acting being a bit more nuanced back then. I would certainly say Louis Fletcher deserved the Oscar she got as nurse Ratchet.Gorrath said:Would you say then that Jack Nicholson was coasting on his boundless charisma in One Flew Over the Cukcoo's Nest? If so I can't say your wrong, it's all subjective on that note, but I'd say he wasn't. I think he got the Oscar because the movie was so profound in the way it tackled a really difficult, heartbreaking issue.
Sometimes even in the same movie. I know I was a bit miffed when Christof Waltz won an Oscar for his by-the-numbers performance in Django, when Samual L. Jackson was absolutely brilliant as the sinister house slave.I think it is fair to say that some people have won best actor in years where other people probably deserved it more because of the attention the film they starred in got.
oh my lawd did he actually seriously I don't I can't evenaceman67 said:Now if he'll only shut up about the 'global warming' he saw in Alberta.
Its called a Chinook, google it Leo.
Actually no, you could basically teach a film editing class using Fury Road as the sole example.Alleged_Alec said:But the film editing was pretty horrible. Especially the bits of the cars moving which were played at double speed looked so horribly bad.jurnag12 said:In other Oscar news, Fury Road won 6 of them ( film editing).
Fair enough.LonePunman said:Actually no, you could basically teach a film editing class using Fury Road as the sole example.Alleged_Alec said:But the film editing was pretty horrible. Especially the bits of the cars moving which were played at double speed looked so horribly bad.jurnag12 said:In other Oscar news, Fury Road won 6 of them ( film editing).
What you're taking issue with is direction. Editing is something else entirely.
That's funny, cause one could've say that's exactly what Hardy was doing in Fury RoadWintermute said:I mean it wasn't bad, but a large part of the movie the dude is just grunting and walking around. By comparison, I felt Tom Hardy was much better.
It's simply been replaced with a different kind on the same subject. The bear is getting popular, for example.MrCalavera said:I don't get some of the negativity in this thread. Even if you dislike his performance, you atleast gotta be glad about putting that tired meme to death.
Sexy look + large budget = success.Zontar said:Seriously, he's not a good actor, how does he have such a massive fan base?
Seriously that should be the big news here. Fury Road was a good movie, sure, but it wasnt Oscar material good. The costumes were standard post apocalypse, the editing wasnt nothing special (well the storm looked cool), make-up was once agian stnadard apocalypse, im not even sure what they mean by production design. Sound was good though, i guess.jurnag12 said:In other Oscar news, Fury Road won 6 of them (costume design, film editing, make-up and hairstyling, production design, sound editing, sound mixing).
Disney owns half of entertainment industry already, they may as well own Oscars.Mr.Mattress said:Since when did Disney own the Oscars? Because the video has been copyright blocked by Disney Enterprises.