The Oscar Nominees Page is up...
February 13, 2001 6:11 AM   Subscribe

The Oscar Nominees Page is up......and it looks like both Gladiator and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon are the two big movies this time, with 10 Nominations each, including Best Picture. In addition, Julia Roberts finally has her oscar nod, as well as Tom Hanks, Ed Harris and Geoffrey Rush returning for another round in the Best Actor Category.
posted by Cavatica (38 comments total)
Predictions anyone?

B. Picture: "Gladiator"

Actor: Russell Crowe ("Gladiator")

Actress: Juliette Binoche ("Chocolat")

S. Actor: Benicio Del Toro ("Traffic")

S. Actress: Kate Hudson ("Almost Famous")

Director: Ang Lee ("Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon")
posted by da5id at 6:14 AM on February 13, 2001

Actually, "Gladiator" was nominated for 12 oscars.
posted by da5id at 6:16 AM on February 13, 2001

You're right. I never counted the Best Actor (Russell Crowe) Nomination and the Best Supporting Actor (Joaquin Phoenix) Nomination. Oops.
posted by Cavatica at 6:19 AM on February 13, 2001

Da5id, it would be such an awesome shame if you're correct. Gladiator is such a mediocre movie. But you probably ARE right.
Oh well, Titanic also won, so...
posted by Doug at 6:26 AM on February 13, 2001

Here's to hoping that Benicio Del Toro wins for supporting actor. I hadn't been affected by a performance like that in quite a while.
posted by trox at 6:27 AM on February 13, 2001

I was shocked shocked shocked by the Best Picture nom for Crouching Tiger. I am dead chuffed by it -- I predicted that it would be overlooked. Not so thrilled by Chocolat. And dammit, where is O Brother, Where Art Thou? but relegated to the screenplay categories. The Coen Brothers genius, cast aside again.

At least Tom Hanks didn't get a nomination.

Since I am an awards fiend, especially with the Oscars, I'm going to wait and think and cogitate on these noms for a while. I'll probably blog my predictions in a couple of weeks. There's a lot to ruminate over this year. Oh, but I'll give one easy money bet -- following in the grand tradition of Disney films and Pop/Rock superstars who align themselves with animated features and end up with the Best Song nomination, Sting will have an Oscar on his mantle come the end of March.
posted by Dreama at 6:30 AM on February 13, 2001

My picks:

B. Actor: Russell Crowe ("Gladiator)

S. Actor: I'd like to see Willem Dafoe(Shadow of the Vampire) get this, but the buzz is really around Del Toro for Traffic.

B. Actress: Julia Roberts really wants this. That's not to say the others don't. Ellen Burstyn did great in Requiem for a Dream (from what I'm told and from what I've read), but I think Roberts might have this one. I wouldn't be surprised to see Burstyn get it.

S. Actress: Judi Dench is always good for an Oscar, and won one recently for Shakespeare in Love. I think it's between Hudson and McDormand, both in Almost Famous.

Director: Ridley Scott's one of my favorite directors, but Ang Lee(Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) has my vote here.
posted by Cavatica at 6:33 AM on February 13, 2001

I'm hoping Crouching Tiger gets Best Picture.
posted by Cavatica at 6:40 AM on February 13, 2001

Russel Crowe gets nominated for a turd like Gladiator, and Michael Douglas gets nothing for the performance of his career in Wonder Boys. Grrrrr.
posted by Optamystic at 6:48 AM on February 13, 2001

I am saddened to see that Battlefield Earth has been ignominiously shut out of the nominees list.
posted by aaron at 6:53 AM on February 13, 2001

I'm sorry. But the Academy has truly lost it this year. I mean, "Gladiator" over "Requiem" or "Dancer?" Julia Roberts for Best Actress? These are the kind of safe choices that Dubya, who really likes reading da movies, would pick. But then the Oscars have always been about celebrating nonsense.

posted by ed at 6:57 AM on February 13, 2001

Don't care. When all four networks devote their early shows, each with its identihost blonde'n'suit, to a lengthy discussion of a self-important industry's annual back-slap, I give up. It doesn't matter. It's not as if it makes the films any better or worse. The Oscars are the studios' way of drumming up business long after a film has left the cinemas, and nothing else.

So watch the damn films, be moved by the ones that move you, and leave the other stuff to People magazine.
posted by holgate at 7:01 AM on February 13, 2001

Dreama..not sure what list you looked at hon, but I do believe Tom Hanks DID get nominated for Best Actor for Castaway. But then again...I am on serious medication for a cold/flu/pneumonia so I could be halucinating.
posted by Princess Buttercup at 7:09 AM on February 13, 2001

I think it's pretty disappointing that Wonder Boys got pretty well ignored. That would have been my choice for best picture... (And Frances McDormand was better in Wonder Boys than Almost Famous.)
posted by MarkAnd at 8:10 AM on February 13, 2001

Another interesting observation is the double best director nomination for Steven Soderbergh. Wonder if having two noms will hurt him in the end, splitting his votes and allowing Scott to take the statue. I would consider that a crime, since Soderbergh is on top of his game right now.

On the same vein I was disappointed to see Traffic left out for cinematography. Guess people think epic movies with broad camera work (Gladiator, Patriot) equates good cinematography. For my money, Soderbergh's use of cinematography to not only delight the eyes but to influence the movie's tone should have been recognized.
posted by sexymofo at 8:31 AM on February 13, 2001

Gladiator is a piece of shit. Best Picture? PLEEEZE!

The Patriot was better than Gladiator. By far.
posted by tweek at 8:39 AM on February 13, 2001

Ack! Tom Hanks IS nominated. Damnit. Why?!?! Why!?! This makes the egregious disrespect of George Clooney all the more palpable. I'm nauseated now. Geez.
posted by Dreama at 8:57 AM on February 13, 2001

It's not surprising, but it is disheartening to see such a flaccid bag of loose air like "Gladiator" garner so much attention thanks only to a shitload of wanky CGI.

But even more disturbing is Joaquin Phoenix's nomination for a performance that was constructed thoroughly out of rancid fucking cheese. His acting turned a perfectly ordinary dumb, bloated movie into the cinematic equivalent of a war crime.
posted by Skot at 9:04 AM on February 13, 2001

Julia Roberts finally has her oscar nod

I hate to be the cynic here, but can anyone explain why Julia Roberts has been nominated for an Oscar? I've never understood her appeal. She's never done anything more than pleasantly entertaining drivel, yet she's completely revered. Much like Tom Hanks, her greatest appeal is that she's so non-threatening.

Um...well, it looks like i answered my own question.
posted by jpoulos at 10:00 AM on February 13, 2001

Actually, this isn't Julia Robert's first time at the big dance. She was nominated for Best Actress for her whore-with-a-heart-of-gold role in Pretty Woman. That, I simply cannot understand.

But having said that, and having seen both Erin Brockovich and (a bowdlerised) Pretty Woman this weekend, the growth in her depth and ability from 1991 to 2000 was almost palpable. Julia's definitely a Hollywood mover and shaker, but this role showed that there's something more behind that than just the looks and the image. And putting together that kind of package (with massive marketing from the studio) can easily equal an Oscar nom.

And unlike some people (Tom #@*$&% Hanks) she's not being nominated for every non-fluff film role that she does just because of who she is. Was her's one of the top five performances of the year? I'd have to agree that in such a craptastic year of film, it was.
posted by Dreama at 10:37 AM on February 13, 2001

I have to echo the consternation that Wonder Boys was majorly dissed. It wasn't a piece of groundbreaking cinema, but it was a hell of a great movie (not to mention a terrific book).
posted by Tin Man at 10:58 AM on February 13, 2001

Knowing how the Oscars work, they'll give "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" the Best Foreign award, thus letting themselves off the hook. I'd like to see "Traffic" rewarded as many times as it is nominated. Soderbergh is indeed on top of his form, and deserves to be recognized. Has any director ever been nominated for two films in the same year? And Del Toro was fantastic. Fingers are being crossed...
posted by jmcnally at 10:58 AM on February 13, 2001

FYI: Soderbergh is the first to receive two best directors noms since Michael Curtiz received two in 1939 (Angels with Dirty Faces and Four Daughters). And if history repeats itself, things don't look good for Soderbergh. Curtiz lost to Frank Capra (You Can't Take It With You). Curtiz had to wait another five years before taking home his statue for that little WWII film Casablanca.
posted by sexymofo at 11:29 AM on February 13, 2001

But even more disturbing is Joaquin Phoenix's nomination for a performance that was constructed thoroughly out of rancid fucking cheese. His acting turned a perfectly ordinary dumb, bloated movie into the cinematic equivalent of a war crime.

I was amazed by Phoenix's nomination too. I don't think it qualified as bad cheese, but it wasn't what I would call a nuanced performance.
posted by rcade at 12:03 PM on February 13, 2001

Phoenix's overblown, two dimensional "Evil Emporer" character made me long for the sublime understatement that Billy Zane displayed in Titanic.
posted by Optamystic at 1:54 PM on February 13, 2001

How sadly unsurprising that Tom Hanks gets another nomination. If losing weight for a role were any criteria, then Matt Damon should have at least gotten more recognition for nearly killing himself for Courage Under Fire. I mean, he looked like a damn skeleton, and noone even blinked an eye, let alone an Oscar nod. Tom was decent in Cast Away, but it was matinee fare, whereas O Brother was a brilliant piece of full-priced moviegoing entertainment. And the shutout of Clooney after winning the Globe was astounding -- I'm a Russell Crowe fan ever since L.A. Confidential but calling his "acting" in Gladiator Oscar-worthy after ignoring him for L.A.... where's the logic in that? True, the Globes are mostly just an excuse for Hollywoodites to trial-run the Oscars with regards to their fashion choices, but I'm thinking the George Clooney/Gable comparisons might haunt Clooney's credibility with regards to more serious cinematic fare, preferring to cast him off as a prettyboy instead. Maybe I'm wrong. Gable was Oscar-nominated thrice and won once, after all. Looks like another Titanic-esque Oscar season is upon us, blockbuster-style.
posted by evixir at 2:14 PM on February 13, 2001

Any double nominee runs the risk of cancelling themself out. I won't be surprised to see Soderbergh a double also-ran in the Direction category with Ang Lee sneaking through for the win.
posted by Dreama at 2:17 PM on February 13, 2001

Okay...I'm just cynical enough to have expected Gladiator to get a nomination for best picture, effects, whatever. But for best original screenplay?


*gets giddy with excitement of oscar fever, regardless ...and even more giddy at the thought of Bjork performing at the Oscars*
posted by brittney at 3:10 PM on February 13, 2001

Props to evixir for knowing that the film Tom Hanks was in is called "Cast Away," not "Castaway."
posted by kindall at 4:01 PM on February 13, 2001

<sarcastic-parallelism comment="5030#37927" apologies-to="aladfar">
Popularity contests like this rather bother me.

Most films aren't well known by many people, and those that are have already recieved plenty of recognition. Really, I bet we could all list the winners right now, and just avoid the contest entirely.

Of course were I the producer of one of those popular movies, I might well feel a bit differently...

[Dreama] Ack! Tom Hanks IS nominated. Damnit. Why?!?! Why!?!

Dammit, it's daMMit, with two Ms, no Ns!! :)

posted by daveadams at 5:40 PM on February 13, 2001

I'm with Ed: the snubbing of Dancer in the Dark and Requiem for a Dream completely astonished me. Especially when a piece of fluff like Chocolat was nominated. I heard they did some massive marketing to the voters for Chocolat, so excuse me while I become cynical.

Of course, I'll be over it in a few weeks and planning my Oscar party.
posted by frykitty at 5:43 PM on February 13, 2001

When you consider Ang Lee's body of work, he seems destined to win, but I doubt it will happen. Hollywood, perhaps more than any other industry in the country, hates Asians.
posted by jpoulos at 5:55 PM on February 13, 2001

Frykitty: You too, eh? For all its pomp and circumstances, the Oscars are a deranged surrogate Super Bowl for film freaks. And it's a minor event in the Ed compound. And what the hell, I won the last two Oscar pools I was in. I hope to cash in again. Personally, I wish that the Fangoria and Independent Spirit Awards were televised with the same three-ring circus flair. I know the latter is sometimes televised. But I don't have cable.

We'll get the overrated "wit" of Bruce Vilanch and more overblown odes to geezers who have paid their dues. (As much as I like Jeff Bridges, why nominate him for his kitschy performance in The Contender?)

Then again, 2000 was a reprehensible film year. But if Gladiator sweeps the ceremony, I'll have to do something rash -- like spray aerosol cheese at the Weega or something.

posted by ed at 6:17 PM on February 13, 2001

Hollywood, perhaps more than any other industry in the country, hates Asians.

I don't doubt this, necessarily, but I'm curious -- why do you say this? Could you explain?
posted by dagnyscott at 6:43 PM on February 13, 2001

I want to be amazed for once and see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon get an award in every category it was nominated in. That would be nifty, and would surely annoy the kids who made Gladiator. I know it wont happen but I can dream.

I find it amusing that my brother didnt like CT,HD which I really liked, and he LOVED Gladiator which I thought was pretty boring and felt mostly like a Braveheart set in Rome. Generally we are in agreement on films.
posted by endorwitch at 9:20 PM on February 13, 2001

daveadams: finger right on it. Sample exchange between two no-brain news anchors this luinchtime. "Well, I've seen all of them apart from Gladiator, so I'd better go and watch that one." Ka-ching, says Mr Studio Boss.

The Oscars, like most media awards, are nothing if not self-serving, in everything from the party, the revenues, the... oh, it bores me.
posted by holgate at 9:59 PM on February 13, 2001

Actor Steve Park, who portrayed one of the greatest enigmatic bit characters in film history (Mike Yanagita in Fargo), wrote an essay about Hollywood's treatment of Asians after an assistant director said this on the Friends set in his presence: "I don't have time for this! Where's Hoshi, Toshi or whatever the fuck his name is. Get the oriental guy!"
posted by rcade at 9:04 AM on February 14, 2001

The Oscars has always been about celebrating what the Hollywood establishment likes best. By and large they're not all that fond of innovation when they have a money making machine that works. Bear in mind that CTHD was made outside of Hollywood, so they have little reason to support it.

On the other hand, as much as I like rooting for Ang Lee, I happened to enjoy Gladiator. It's a well made action film with a little style and LOTS of excellent combat sequences (much like CTHD) . Much better than Braveheart. Score one for Ridley Scott.
posted by Loudmax at 12:03 AM on February 15, 2001

« Older When I read about this it made me feel ill.   |   "Prime Minister Jean Chr├ętien issued a pointed... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments