Golden Globes noms. Only one for Milk (Penn)- Page 2

[nealb1]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 1:03pm

What we are all forgetting here is that the Golden Globes lumps the 2 supporting acting categories into 1....no distiction between Musical/Comedy and Drama like with the lead categories.

I was surprised, too, that James Brolin and James Franco weren't each nominated for "Milk." But, only 5 people can get nominated...either way, someone will be left out. It's not homophobia...just a tough call to make.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 1:11pm

Not a tough call at all, since Cruise didnt deserve a nomination.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 1:14pm

The omission of Milk in Picture, Director and Screenplay makes no sense.

I probably won't even bother watching the GG this year.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 1:17pm

Oh, for Chrissakes people, its the Golden Globes! They're a joke in the industry! And the "warm-up for the Oscars" crap isn't true at all.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 1:20pm

Roscoe - I completely agree with you regarding Dark Knight. Ledger's performance is the only thing nom-worthy regarding that film.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 1:26pm

Capote only got a Best Actor GG nom and then went on to great support at the Oscar noms. And, Milk winning the NY Critic Award has more power for Oscar buzz than the GGs.

The TV noms are always frustrating--both here and the Emmys. A few that excite ya but mostly "HUH?" and "Where the hell is..."

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 1:28pm

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 4:02pm

I like some of their picks but honestly, Tom Cruise for TROPIC THUNDER? What kind of joke is THAT?

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 4:48pm

The SAG's now are the best judge of how the Oscar nominations will go down. The Globes aren't even a great judge of the Emmy Awards anymore.

[gertiecummings]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 5:32pm

The Golden Globes are nominated by the Hollywood Foreign Press, so it's a bunch of JOURNALISTS choosing the best actor, best picture, etc. That's pretty much why I don't think too much of the Golden Globes.

The Oscars are chosen by actors, directors, etc. A.k.a people who actually know what to look for.

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 7:10pm

With today’s announcement of the Golden Globe nominees the award season has officially started in kind and I am sickened. Disgusted. Not to mention plenty of other synonyms. Because finally, after years of bringing us to this momentous occasion, film studios, critics, “journalists” and those voting for these nominations and awards have finally succeeded in taking us out of the picture. Congratulations to them.

Yep, that’s right. The general public no longer has any say in whether or not a film is good or not. “Oscar” films aren’t even made for public consumption any more: they come off of assembly lines with staffs of publicists seeking to do nothing but cause buzz and cater to a minute group of elitist film critics (who are getting smaller and more obsolete with each passing month) so they can continue to feel self-important. Those films aren’t made for us, the normal people who spend billions of dollars every year supporting an industry that is nothing but full of himself.

I’d love to write this opinion piece about all of the nominees, but I cannot. Not because I’ve chosen not to see the nominated films, but I cannot. None of the films nominated for Best Drama are available for consumers to view anywhere near Akron, Ohio. Not one. And I’ve seen less than 30 percent of the nominated performances. I’m disgusted.

Excellent films that were released to the general public have been systematically cut down by critics for daring to allow us to have a say. Though audiences loved “Changeling” and “Australia,” both receiving “A” averages from viewers in post-movie polls, critics attacked them, perhaps not because they were mediocre but because their producers dared to release them for * gasp * us to watch. And for those who would like to argue that there is no place for “art” in the multiplexes, please remember that “Crash,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “Juno” “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Pan’s Labyrinth” did just fine for being small “art-house” films.

Of the five nominated dramas, the only one I’ll be able to see before the new year will be “Benjamin Button,” and that’s only if it is not placed in limited release on Christmas. The rest will be seen in early to late January 2009 and, pardon me for asking, but shouldn’t movies released generally in 2009 not be eligible for 2008 awards?

Oh wait, I forgot, they are in release. Let’s investigate. Best Drama nominee “Frost/Nixon” is available in a whopping three theaters across the country right now, which might seem pathetic until you see that “The Reader” is only playing in one theater. And there’s no sign of “Revolutionary Road” or “Benjamin Button” now or at any point in the near future. It makes the 78 theaters showing “Slumdog Millionaire” seem hugely extravagant. And as for those other “Oscar” contenders “Doubt,” “The Wrestler,” “Gran Torino” and “Last Chance Harvey,” I’d love to comment but, whoops, no sign of them anywhere.

No wonder The Oscars’ ratings have been going downhill over the past decade: How are we supposed to bring ourselves to care about films and performances, let alone choose which ones to root for, when WE CANNOT SEE THEM. We can only be told what to love and how much to love it so long before we rebel, after all. The general public should not be opening newspapers tomorrow and wondering “What the hell are these movies!?”

But then again, maybe we should be cut out of the process. Maybe the critics and HFPA and the Academy does know better than us. Then again, when was the last time you thought about “Babel”? Or “Letters From Iwo Jima”? Or “Bobby”? Or “The Queen”? Or “The Constant Gardener”? Or “Closer”? How about “Sideways”? “Kinsey”? “Cold Mountain”? “About Schmidt”? Anyone?

Updated On: 12/11/08 at 07:10 PM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/11/08 at 8:48pm

Hon, you are wasting too much energy on an award show that most people find unimportant.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 1:18am

But then again, maybe we should be cut out of the process. Maybe the critics and HFPA and the Academy does know better than us. Then again, when was the last time you thought about “Babel”? Or “Letters From Iwo Jima”? Or “Bobby”? Or “The Queen”? Or “The Constant Gardener”? Or “Closer”? How about “Sideways”? “Kinsey”? “Cold Mountain”? “About Schmidt”? Anyone?

As opposed to what?

I understand your frustration that you can't see a lot of these films, but most of these films wouldn't get wide-releases until they get support from critics and "film snobs".

Updated On: 12/12/08 at 01:18 AM

[musicalfandukie]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 2:27am

The Golden Globes have always been known for giving strange nominations from time to time but I have to say the Tom Cruise one is the strangest one so far. That was mostly a cameo! A performance like James Franco in Milk should of got a Nod. Not Tom. Updated On: 12/12/08 at 02:27 AM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 3:17am

The Globes also nominate, Cruise being a prime example, to get big stars to show up.

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 11:31am

I actually agree with Robert Taylor. I never understood how movies most people can't see are nominated, and then the producers wonder why ratings are slipping. This year IS a perfect example - The Dark Knight was the perfect movie for them -- critically acclaimed, publicly acclaimed, HUGE box office -- and no nomination. This WAS a slap in the face to the general audience, saying our tastes aren't worthy. Honestly, this is the first year that I'll probably skip the awards - other than a couple of the TV comedy awards, there's very little nominated that I really care enough to root for.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 11:45am

It's just the Golden Globes. It's not as prestigious an award as entertainment networks, programs, and NBC make it out to be. A lot of the Foreign Hollywood Press aren't even members of the press and I heard all you need is like 35 votes to win.

Also, the Academy Awards were never about public opinion and they shouldn't be. I mean why not nominate Hancock as well...that made a lot of money.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 11:53am

DARK KNIGHT didn't get nominated because it wasn't a good movie, definitely not better than any of the ones who actually got the nod.
I am still baffled that they nominated Tom Cruise for TROPIC THUNDER, and even Robert Downey Jr. Ridiculous.
Then again, aren't they the same people who nominated Ellen Burstyn for a cameo that she did in a TV movie? I believe she had a 2 minute scene or something to that effect. Or was that at the Emmys?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 4:08pm

I don't mind the cameo nomination so much if it is for an extraordinarily memorable performance such as Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love (for which she won the Oscar, not the Globe). Let's face it, the supporting category is almost always given to the most memorable performance of the year. It's just that there was nothing about that particular performance by Cruise that was special. The only reason I can see for his nomination is that Cruise is foreign press GOLD. They would probably nominate David Beckham for Alfie 2: Marriage on the Rocks if someone simply bothered to make the film.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 4:14pm

The Oscars are chosen by actors, directors, etc. A.k.a people who actually know what to look for.

Except when Brokeback Mountain doesn't when. They they are a joke and homophobic.

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 4:15pm

I actually thought Cruise was funny in the role, but I wouldn't say it was award worthy. They just want him on the red carpet.

[Taryn]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 4:19pm

I thought Cruise was funny purely because he was playing against type. Other than agreeing to do a role totally unlike ones he usually does, there wasn't anything special about it.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 4:22pm

And what's up with Valkyrie? Is it that awful or were the foreign press simply not invited?

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 6:41pm

I just got back from seeing MILK, easily one of the most powerful films I have ever seen. It's pretty absurd that it didn't get a nod for Best Pic.
Having said that, I don't feel that Josh Brolin or James Franco got robbed of a nod. I thought they were great in their roles, but I didn't feel they needed to be singled out. I do think they should have the SAG award for Best Ensemble locked. The cast was uniformly strong. If anything I felt Emile Hirsch's was the supporting performance that I'd be more partial to single out. Sean Penn should win the award for leading actor.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/12/08 at 7:27pm

I thought Emile Hirsch was terrific too, ray. His performance just leaps right off the screen. He has so much presence, he just kinda takes over (in such a good way). I would love to see him get a supporting Oscar nod. And I think it's safe to say he has a very bright future in Hollywood. I have a feeling he's going to be around for many years to come. He's one of those charismatic character actors that could easily become a major leading player (like Dustin Hoffman or Jack Nicholson).

Brolin's performance is subtle, but also scary and tragic. And I thought it was such a great transformation to see him go so far "into character." He nailed it. I do think he will be nominated, and I think he'll be a front-runner as well (with Heath).

I also thought Franco was excellent, and his character (among the supporting players) has the biggest scope and arc, going from A to Z. He evolves so much throughout the film, both physically and emotionally.

I also really loved Alison Pill as Anne Kronenberg.

You're absolutely right that they should have the "Best Ensemble" SAG Award sewn up. Not a bad note among them (although I winced a few times at Diego Luna, but that was due to his pathetic character, not his bad acting).