Blogcritics Comments on Oscar Wrap Up

Comment by Eric Olsen on Oscar Wrap Up

Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:56:32 EST

ah, the South Africans are checking in. I have no strong opinion about Charlize's acting either way, having not seen Monster (I am typically not drawn to ugly lesbian serial killer movies), but I do have a problem with the logic that compares a single best actress award to a director's body of work: there will always be these kinds of dichotomies where a career great has never won an award, which is based upon being the "best" at one place at one time. That's why they came up with the career awards - Hitchcock never won best director either.

Comment by Barkley on Oscar Wrap Up

Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:41:35 EST

Up yours you f*cking a*sehole. Charlize Therone is beautiful, and by far the best actress in Hollywood. Go such a lemon, you shitface!!!

Comment by Rodney Welch on Oscar Wrap Up

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:43:45 EST

Monster.

Comment by Brian Streeper on Oscar Wrap Up

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:38:14 EST

She can act? Really? Which one of her roles convinced you of that? Was it "2 Days in the Valley"? Or "The Devil's Advocate"?

Comment by Rodney Welch on Oscar Wrap Up

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:35:13 EST

No, she can act because she's extremely talented.

Comment by Brian Streeper on Oscar Wrap Up

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:10:36 EST

I think Pacino was nominated twice in the same year (it may have been for both "Dick Tracy" and "Scent of a Woman") but I'm not sure. Charlize Theron is famous for being pretty. She made a movie where she was ugly. Hollywood fell all over itself praising her "bravery" for tackling such a role. Just because she gained weight and made herself ugly doesn't mean she can act.

Comment by visualsimplicity on Oscar Wrap Up

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:04:17 EST

If I remember correctly, when Foxx was walking up to accept best actor, one of the facts the announcer mentioned was that he was the first actor to be nominated for best actor and best supporting actor at the same Oscars. Oh and Charlize Theron is not a no-talent hack.

Comment by Eric Olsen on Oscar Wrap Up

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:09:03 EST

I don't think so, but check out the FAQ section on Oscar.com for lots of trivia.

Comment by Mark Saleski on Oscar Wrap Up

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:50:01 EST

has anybody ever won for both best and supporting actor in the same year?

Comment by Rodney Welch on Oscar Wrap Up

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:46:38 EST

One category gripe: why was Jamie Foxx nominated as "Best Supporting Actor" for Collateral? I saw the movie this weekend, and there is nothing "supporting" about his role. The movie is ABOUT him, and he has the biggest role in it. His part is even bigger than the role of Tom Cruise, who I guess because of his name and status is considered the lead. I suppose the studio offered Foxx's name for nomination in this category just to double his chances.

Comment by Rodney Welch on Oscar Wrap Up

Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:31:22 EST

I prefer to see Scorsese win when he deserves it, which may never happen. He hasn't made a great film in a while now. Personally, I think the best of the five nominated movies was Sideways -- but if that can't win then I'm pleased to see that Million Dollar Baby got it, and that Eastwood, Swank and Freeman were honored.