#2
Posted: 1/19/18 at 12:03pm
Well, let's see if they get nominations first. (Which I suspect they will.)
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#3
Posted: 1/19/18 at 12:11pm
Nope.
My father (AIDS)
My sister (AIDS)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS, AIDS, AIDS)
The gays and the straights
And the white and the spades
#4
Posted: 1/19/18 at 1:42pm
Maztuski said: "Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks will get Oscars!"
I'm going to assume that you do not follow these races closely. Meryl is likely to get nominated, as she always does. However, it is worth mentioning that the last time she was snubbed by SAG and BAFTA during a campaign, she did not get nominated for the Oscar. Hasn't happened in a while, but it's a possibility. That category is a bloodbath this season. Many worthy candidates. I hope she is left out. The film is an absolute snooze. The Oscar will go to Frances McDormand or Saoirse Ronan. If McDormand wins at SAG this weekend, she's on her way to Oscar #2.
#5
Posted: 1/19/18 at 1:57pm
THE POST will win not a single Oscar, and I will be surprised if it manages more than 1 or 2 nominations this coming Tuesday when nominations are announced. Likeliest scenario: a best picture nom and nothing else. There are simply too many other more deserving candidates in every category they're up for.
#6
Posted: 1/19/18 at 4:20pm
The awards are pretty solidly Frances McDormand/Saoirse Ronan and Gary Oldman/Timothee Chalamet’s to lose. Hanks and Streep don’t stand a chance this year.
Updated On: 1/19/18 at 04:20 PM
#7
Posted: 1/19/18 at 4:55pm
Yeah, they hype does not favor Meryl (or Tom), but that's not to say they don't actually deserve an Oscar - it's just that the sheep voters go with the groupthink mentality and the hype becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$
#8
Posted: 1/19/18 at 5:19pm
Tom Hanks relationship with the Oscars has become bizarre. It's hard to fathom he hasn't even received a nomination since Cast Away in 2001 after back to back wins in 1993 and 1994. I think he suffers from the fact that he is such an incredibly gifted actor and so natural as he disappears into characters, and makes all of that look so easy that people have such a high standard for him, a remarkable performance is viewed as just average Hanks. Was his performance as Captain Phillips not Oscar worthy? Sully? James Donovan in Bridge of Spies? He gets no Oscar love at all.
Updated On: 1/19/18 at 05:19 PM
#9
Posted: 1/19/18 at 6:16pm
Well, lots of people deserve the Oscar. A lot more than 5 performances. But the question is not “how many actors are worthy of the award,” it’s “who is most likely to take home the trophy.” As it stands, The Post has very little traction outside of respect for its timely message.
Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks are two of the greatest film actors alive. Of course they’re giving award-worthy performances. Will they win this year? Nah.
Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks are two of the greatest film actors alive. Of course they’re giving award-worthy performances. Will they win this year? Nah.
#10
Posted: 1/19/18 at 8:31pm
Personally, I don't even think they've given Oscar-worthy performances on this one. Sorry, folks. Meryl seems constipated to me, without a huge arc (compare this work to her dazzling turn as Maggie Thatcher a few years back). And Tom Hanks suddenly turned actor-y in The Post in a way he rarely does-- you just see all the gears turning whenever he opens his mouth. (Compare this to his brilliant Charle Wilson's War for a really award-worthy performance.) No worries-- They still have many roles to come that could finally win them that next trophy.
#11
Posted: 1/22/18 at 2:43pm
I saw "The Post" last night and I was bored for the first half of the movie until they actually got to the meat of the plot. Overall it was okay.........not much else.
"They're eating her and then they're going to eat me. OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!" -Troll 2
#12
Posted: 1/22/18 at 5:13pm
Hanks and Streep don’t stand a chance - not because of their lack of ability, but because of the lacking of their film as a whole. They are two very gifted actors - arguably some of the most gifted alive - who were both given roles which they couldn’t go anywhere or do anything with. Not their fault that they aren’t award-worthy, they didn’t do the writing. Neither character has any significant arc or internal conflict to make the performances interesting. I agree with those who are saying this is a McDormand/Ronan race, and after McDormand’s Golden Globe and SAG wins (which were very much deserved IMO), my money is on her.
#13
Posted: 1/27/18 at 12:06am
I thought THE POST was B+ Spielberg. I liked it a lot and it has me reading Katharine Graham's memoir, "Personal History"...
That THE POST and DARKEST HOURS beat out I, TONYA in the Best Picture nominations really surprises me.
Also, I think this recent trend of allowing up to 10 movies to be nominated for Best Picture is rather absurd...especially given the fact that Best Director is still limited to 5 nominees. I believe the increase to 10 nominees for Best Picture was a way to have companies spend more money in "for your consideration" advertising in the trades (Variety and The Hollywood Reporter).
Anyone who reads the trades will know what I'm talking about.
Updated On: 1/27/18 at 12:06 AM
#14
Posted: 1/27/18 at 4:04pm
I agree with your thought that the 10 noms are ridiculous -especially given it's the only category to do so. (Not sure I agre with your thoughts about WHY they chose to do it, but I haven't given the why a lot of thought.)
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#15
Posted: 1/27/18 at 5:13pm
The original rationale for allowing more than 5 Best Picture nominees was basically as a means to honor blockbuster popcorn flicks in a given year that would never get Oscar consideration otherwise. The thinking was that audiences would more willingly tune in to the awards show if they could root for a Marvel superhero movie or a Star Wars extravaganza rather than just the rarified smaller films that were getting all the nominations but not the ticket-buying public's attention. Hence the doubling of the nominees.
The punchline is that the top moneymakers each year still manage to elude best picture consideration, and even less frequently manage to capture the top prize. Happily and surprisingly, the academy continues to reward those small deserving films (THE ARTIST, SPOTLIGHT, MOONLIGHT) with the top trophy and box office be damned.
#16
Posted: 2/4/18 at 6:47pm
I was expecting to be underwhelmed by The Post, but I really enjoyed it. Yeah, it has some the usual Spielberg schmaltz, and it's no All The President's Men, but it worked for me. It was nice not to be disappointed by another of the acclaimed year-end releases.
#17
Posted: 2/4/18 at 9:19pm
You can't help but think of the superb All The Presidents Men and the sheet energy and thrill of the chase in that film when you watch The Post. It fails at coming close when it's such an interesting story.
Spielberg went too mushy with it as well and his direction was so inconsistent.
Spielberg went too mushy with it as well and his direction was so inconsistent.
Namo i love u but we get it already....you don't like Madonna
#18
Posted: 2/5/18 at 12:08pm
One of Streep's very best performances.
The movie has its moments but overall solid if nothing special, and soured by a few typical Spielbergian excesses. I hated the Watergate ending. I also hated that the movie told us nothing about what happened to Ellsberg.
#19
Posted: 2/5/18 at 3:01pm
I really enjoyed it, though Hanks seemed miscast. His performance seemed so forced, especially when compared to Streep.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
