Oscars Results

Mr E · 24-03-2003 8:46am #1

Anyone surprised at last nights results? I expected Daniel Day Lewis to get best actor. I'm glad Adrian Brody got it, though.

I can't see why Nicole Kidman won for The Hours. She just looked miserable throughout the entire movie.

Full results here: http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners.html

- Dave.

Washout · 24-03-2003 8:56am

Aye alot of it was a surprise.

Amazing how freedom of speech doesnt really apply over there...as one of the award wuinners speech wwas drowned out by music.

aine · 24-03-2003 9:09am

whats so surprising?

Daniel Day Lewis was amazing in Gangs but the fact remains that he had less screen time in the film than deCaprio and so should never have been nominated in the category in the first place! Adrien Brody was out of this world in the pianist. He carried anentire film on his shoulders, and what a film to have to carry! Polanski well deserved his gong too! Although I am starting to feel a little sorry for Scorcesse, but then again Gangs was by no means the best of the films he has been nominated for and so it was hardly surprising he didnt win this year either!

Im disappointed that Nicole Kidman won best actress, I thought Selma Hayek should have gotten it for Frida, if for no other reason than the fact that she has worked so hard to get it to the screens and again she does actually play the leading role as opposed to Kidman who had equal screen time with her co-stars!

Original Screenplay? Almovodar? hardly a surprise! everybody loves him, and rightly so!

Documentary....what else could have won??

I may not understand why, but it is hardly surprising that Chicago swept the boards! Although I have to say Im delighted for Catherine Zeta Jones

The Road to Perdition....hardly surprising that it won for cinematography!

No I seriously cant see anything surprising bout the results!!

Mr E · 24-03-2003 9:31am

OK, some surprises, then. Kidman winning best Actress and Polanski winning best director (I'm delighted with this result, but it wasn't expected).

Pigman II · 24-03-2003 10:36am

Fair play to Michael Moore for speaking his mind despite being warned not to. Not very tolerant of the audience to boo him offstage but then I can't think of anything I'd rather be than unpopular in a room full of the worlds most sychophantic arseholes.

Nice the way they cut off several of the technical award winners midsentence during their acceptance speeches but let the 'famous' winners drone on even past their alloted 45 seconds until they were finished their verbal diahorrea.

Tusky · 24-03-2003 10:53am

there can be more than one "main" actor in a film .. just becoz he had less screen time doesnt mean he should have been entered in the supporting actor catigory imo.... and he should of won also imo

the celtic tiger · 24-03-2003 12:02pm

did anyone watch it on BBC1 last night. John Rhys davies was one funny guy. he just kept plugging lord of the rings and kept saying how he didn't like the hours at all. Jonathon ross asked him why not and he replied with "The lesbo AIDS thing isn't my cup of tea" . what a winner. they also discussed the fact that a battle at helms deep wouldn't have done the film any harm at all. a winning performance.

jonno · 24-03-2003 12:04pm

Originally posted by aine
whats so surprising?

Daniel Day Lewis was amazing in Gangs but the fact remains that he had less screen time in the film than deCaprio and so should never have been nominated in the category in the first place!

That doesn't mean anything at all.

If that was the way the Oscars were distributed how then did Kevin Spacey win Best Supproting Actor for The Usual Suspects when he obviously had the most screen time in the movie??????

If your deduction is correct, then should Spacey not have won Best Actor?????

Anyway back to the subject. Im sorry Scorcese didn't get the Oscar to because IMO he did a fantastic job. The Academy are just going through their "Let's give the award the much hyed about musicals" phase.

:mad:

Panda · 24-03-2003 12:09pm

One of the very few Oscars that i wanted to watch to the very end and did....

Steve Martin was as funny as a box of frogs,

Michael Moore will never get an oscar again no matter what,

Nicole Kidman will write an acceptance speech no matter what (she looked like a stunned sheep on the stage)

Adrien Brody is a geezer! his award was presented by none other than Halle Berry, once on stage instead of the usual peck on the cheek he completely went for it and snogged her! Doritos ad style! and then when the orchestra tried to play him off, he just told them to "cut it out" and let him have a few minutes more!

GuanYin · 24-03-2003 12:36pm

I have to say that Moore's speech was pretty tame by his standards

Knowing his past works, I'd say he toned it down. That said, he had the balls to say what alot of people think, but are afraid to say, to the entire world.

The things is though, the academy is looked on quite dubiously these days (the year gump beat shawshank was when I lost interest), so I think their efforts to censor Moore may get them some very bad PR when the dust settles down....

Tom · 24-03-2003 12:56pm

Michael Moore says what he believes and it won him the Oscar, for which I cangratulate the Academy. But then they go and let themselves down by trying to censor him. What he said was very tame by his standards and in no way anti-american, it was anti-Bush.

I agree with sykeirl when he says he lost respect for the Academy the year of the gump fiasco. Any little bit of respect I had left went this year thanks to their attempts at censorship (and also The Lord of the Rings losing out to Chicago:( )

CodeMonkey · 24-03-2003 1:14pm

Spirited Away got best animated movie oscar

Yay!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 24-03-2003 1:15pm

aye, it's a great film :0

what did moore say?

Tom · 24-03-2003 1:21pm

From the BBC website

Moore, who won for his anti-gun film Bowling for Columbine, said to loud and prolonged boos and cheers: "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president."

As the noise continued, he added: "We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons. "

Struggling to make himself heard as his alloted time for a speech ran out and the orchestra started to play, he said: "Whether it is the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts, we are against this war, Mr Bush"
"Shame on you, Mr Bush. Shame on you."

Full story here

anthonymcg · 24-03-2003 2:07pm

Anyone know where I can download it?

Wook · 24-03-2003 2:18pm

don't think the Oscars, is something that reflects the quality of the actors... as many actors (stage actors) are way better then the quality we see in a film.
Oscars me thinks is just another brilliant marketing ploy in which the mighty of the film industry just plays a game.

GuanYin · 24-03-2003 2:25pm

Well I believe the offical titles of the awards are
"Best Performance by an actor....."
"Best Performance by an actress...."

etc etc.

Now, to tell me that Daniel Day-Lewis's performance wasn't the best out of those candidates will just make me point and laugh....

Asuka · 24-03-2003 5:05pm

Other than the whole Chicago fiasco, I thought they were pretty much all ok. Happy to see Spirited Away win best animated movie - this is the only one I think I would have really been annoyed at if it lost.

A

Giblet · 24-03-2003 6:16pm

War+Oscars=Pansy films winning awards

aine · 24-03-2003 6:34pm

I take your point about screentime, but I still argue that it was Di Caprio who was the lead actor!

anywho.....I actually would have been disappointed had Scorsesse won for Gangs, it soo would have been a gesture rather than on merit! it wasnt the best film in the category! It was a great film but the direction in the pianist was IMO by FAR better! gangs tried to be something that it wasnt and for him to get an Oscar for that after not getting one for such a great film as Goodfellas....I dunno to me it would have been transparent!

Mr E · 24-03-2003 11:50pm

Just watched it tonight.... pretty enjoyable ceremony overall. Adrian Brody was the highlight for me... snogging one of the most beautiful girls in the world, then stopping the orchestra because he wasn't finished! Priceless....

sceptre · 25-03-2003 2:09am

Originally posted by aine
I take your point about screentime, but I still argue that it was Di Caprio who was the lead actor!

Yes he probably was but it doesn't matter. In the old days, the measure of whether an actor could be nominated in a leading or supporting role was whether the name was above or below the movie title. Hence Frank Sinatra's name was moved below the credits for From Here To Eternity as everyone thought he'd be in with a better chance of getting the Supporting award (correctly as it happens). These days, they've dumped that rule - any actor or actress can be nominated in either category - essentially it's up to those who nominate them (keeping in mind that only acting (in the "actor" sense) members of AMPAS get to nominate the actors for both awards; everyone gets to vote on the final award). Hence well within the rules, eligible for the best Actor category etc etc ad nauseum. Moot point then.

And kudos to Michael Moore. Even if you don't agree with what he has to say (I often do as it happens, especially in this case) he's got the balls to stand up in public and risk his own future to make a point in which he believes. More power to him.

Karl Hungus · 25-03-2003 3:36am

The usual crapness of it was broken by Moore, and in fairness, well on him...

Pure travesty that dross like Chicago runs away with so much. But what the hell is to be expected? This is the orcars for ****s sake. To be frank, they're just not something I can take in any way serious. Personally, I enjoyed the Baftas far more.

In total agreance on the Gump travesty. But what's a far, far bigger travesty is that the film Titanic won the most amount of oscars, along with Ben Hur. Although Ben Hur is a complete and utter classic, tell me... Who here could possibly take titanic seriously now? Only 6 years later, and it holds the same respect as Jaws 3.

The Oscars are a joke.

MisterAnarchy · 25-03-2003 9:55am

I stayed up to watch the show.
Steve Martin was a disaster at the start.His jokes were terrible until he saved himself with the clip about the people he slept with.
I enjoyed the show and must say the 3.5 hrs passed quickly .
However a few things must be questioned.
Firstly 'Chicago' is not a good film.
Shouldnt have won any award in my opinion.Another Shakespeare in Love.
Secondly ,was nearly ever major winner released by Miramax ?
The Hours, Frida,Chicago ?
Harvey Weinstein is a fat mogul who is ruining the awards by bribing members .
Why didnt U2 win best Original Song when theirs was the best by a mile.
Secondly Eminem' song isnt original.It contains samples.
This was a disgrace.
Did anyone notice how most of the films were chick flicks ...The Hours, Frida,Chicago .
Also one has to question the fact that all of the winning films were released in the US in December 2002.
Is it the best films of the previous yr ,or Dec 2001.
Seems the Academy have no memory ?
Each yr the Academy' decisions get worse.

Cork · 25-03-2003 11:25am

I was delighted for Nicole Kidman - She is a big talent. But M. Streep deserved an oscar as well. She was truly amazing in both Adaptation & the hours.

I was never a fan of musicals. So, I can't understand the thing about Chicago.

U2's "Hands That Built America" is not a very good song. I think that this was a factor in it not winning.

sceptre · 25-03-2003 1:14pm

Originally posted by MisterAnarchy
Also one has to question the fact that all of the winning films were released in the US in December 2002.
Is it the best films of the previous yr ,or Dec 2001.
Seems the Academy have no memory ?

Probably one of the reasons they crowd many possible oscar winners for release in late December. Also the reason Silence of the Lambs was such a surprise winner - it was on cable by the time the awards came around.

Karl Hungus · 25-03-2003 7:21pm

Originally posted by MisterAnarchy

Also one has to question the fact that all of the winning films were released in the US in December 2002.
Is it the best films of the previous yr ,or Dec 2001.
Seems the Academy have no memory ?

Seeing as the Academy Awards are hosted this time every year, it's conceivable that they are judging films over the past year, rather than simply the current year we are in. Much like a school 'Year'. If it had only been films out in 2003, where would films that are yet to come out going to get? Discarded...? No.

MisterAnarchy · 26-03-2003 9:27am

Last Sundays awards covered any film given a US release in the 2002 calendar year.

MisterAnarchy · 26-03-2003 9:28am

Is it the best films of the previous yr ,or Dec 2001.

Typo error.
Should read Dec 2002.
Sorry

Shinji · 26-03-2003 9:47pm

Delighted to see Oscars for Michael Moore and Hayao Miyazaki at last. The rest of it... Who cares, really? The big-name Oscars are utterly out of touch with the filmgoing public anyway, and they don't even represent a "best quality" award any more. It's only the smaller categories and technical categories that have any semblance of reality about them any more.

(And no, I'm not one of the people having a hissy fit this year because The Two Towers didn't win anything major - I personally don't really think it deserved any major awards, to be honest.)

Karl Hungus · 27-03-2003 2:39am

Thanks for bringing that up, Rob.

Odd that I didn't have a hissy fit this year about it...
But I still say that Ian McKellan should've won the oscar for Fellowship.

aine · 30-03-2003 3:34pm

Originally posted by MisterAnarchy
I stayed up to watch the show.
Steve Martin was a disaster at the start.His jokes were terrible until he saved himself with the clip about the people he slept with.
I enjoyed the show and must say the 3.5 hrs passed quickly .
However a few things must be questioned.
Firstly 'Chicago' is not a good film.
Shouldnt have won any award in my opinion.Another Shakespeare in Love.
Secondly ,was nearly ever major winner released by Miramax ?
The Hours, Frida,Chicago ?
Harvey Weinstein is a fat mogul who is ruining the awards by bribing members .
Why didnt U2 win best Original Song when theirs was the best by a mile.
Secondly Eminem' song isnt original.It contains samples.
This was a disgrace.
Did anyone notice how most of the films were chick flicks ...The Hours, Frida,Chicago .
Also one has to question the fact that all of the winning films were released in the US in December 2002.
Is it the best films of the previous yr ,or Dec 2001.
Seems the Academy have no memory ?
Each yr the Academy' decisions get worse.

firstly, Steve Martin was perfect for the time thats in it, they wanted somebody that could pull off a half way somber tone and still be moderately funny....he worked!

I have to agree with you on the whole Chicago thing! its a musical...go see it in a theatre!

Miramax are just in a very good stretch!

The Hours is NOT what I would classify a 'chick flick' just because a film discusses what could be classified as feminine issues does not make it a chick flick, Maid in Manhatten is a chick flick. Frida is NOT! In my opinion Frida is just one example of how women are finally getting a firm grip on Hollywood.....it took Selma Hayek 7yrs to get that film onto our screens.....for sheer determination alone she deserved an oscar. More so than Ms. Kidman anyway!

Oscars Results

Comments