RE: Female leads

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Female leads

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: Female leads

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Female leads - 31/1/2006 6:19:19 PM

Memoirs of Maria

Posts: 80
Joined: 21/1/2006
From: Romford, Essex

quote:

ORIGINAL: theram05

quote:

ORIGINAL: dexter

I think it was a pretty predictable bunch of nominations. Knightley was a surprise but the Best Actress race is fairly weak this year anyway.

exactly! All these people going on about the shock of KK getting a nom musts have realised that this year was a really rubbish one for female leads, christ even Charlize has got back in for a rubbish albeit very earnest role.

To be honest none of the nominations really grabbed too much, although I am happy to see that best film and best directors noms are linked this year, it only makes sense to me really, are the academy finally getting sense?!!

I have to disagree with you men. it's not the quality of the female leads that was poor, but rather ther lack of good roles out there for actresses to play.

As for your comment about Charlize Theron's role in North County goes, have you actually been to see the film? I wasn't aware that they had released it in the U.K. yet.

And as far as the Best Director and Best Actor matching up goes, I wouldn't assume " the Academy are finally getting sense". Walk the line should have been in amongst the Best Film nominations.

(in reply to theram05)

Post #: 61

Great Year for Film - 31/1/2006 6:40:39 PM

spikespiegel

Posts: 92
Joined: 30/1/2006

Glad to see Munich pic up some noms finally - this film will stay with me longest out of these and is already a classic imo - one of my fav films. Ofcourse Brokeback will beat it in the categories it's nominated in and deserves to do well being a classic Academy-darling type of film; very solid. Ang deserves the award too (though spielberg's eye was technically better). Its a disgrace that ROTS isnt up for visual effects. Apart from that, I'm glad to see that this is a fine bunch of nominations, and there aren't any glaring ommisions in a good year for film, and these noms are very representative of that.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 62

RE: Great Year for Film - 31/1/2006 7:07:18 PM

James2183

Posts: 10204
Joined: 30/9/2005

Good to see smaller films getting attention for the first time in a long while. I got a feeling Brokeback Mountain wont sweep the Oscars as many are predicting though which will hopefully add some tension during the awards ceremony which has been lacking the last few years.

But I still cannot believe Sith got snubbed for both Kong and Narnia in the special effects category. The Academy were shown 15 minutes from each film to see what the film had to offer. At what point in either film did the effects have a more overall quality than Episode III? True the characters of Kong and Aslan were great pieces of CGI but 'overall' the films were below parwith effects whilst Sith stayed at a high quality. Shocking.

Although it is more closer on the score category I still feel Sith deserved a nod for that as well as costumes too. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?!

Lucas got screwed.

_____________________________

Hey bub, I aint finished with you yet!

"We do not beat the reaper by living longer. We beat the reaper by living well and living fully" - Randy Pausch

(in reply to spikespiegel)

Post #: 63

RE: Great Year for Film - 31/1/2006 7:14:09 PM

Cethan

Posts: 107
Joined: 30/9/2005

I think its great that there is a proper collection in the animation Section. Usually it's just Dreamworks Vs. Disney.

_____________________________

Do I know where hell is? Hell is in hello.
Heaven is "Goodbye forever. It's time for me to go."

(in reply to James2183)

Post #: 64

- 31/1/2006 7:40:37 PM

Big_Pants

Posts: 123
Joined: 16/1/2006

Just so very pleased to see Munich finally get some recognition. I know in my heart it won't win anything but the noms are most welcome. I would dearly have loved to see Eric Bana and Ciaran Hinds in the mix but we can't have everything I guess. A far better list than our own Baftas and good luck Keira!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 65

- 31/1/2006 7:58:24 PM

big_al

Posts: 68
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Future

reese witherspoon should win

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 66

RE: Actress category remarkably poor - 31/1/2006 8:05:33 PM

big_al

Posts: 68
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Future

reese should win

_____________________________

Censorship KILL'S freedom of expression!
Censorship is EVIL!

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 67

jodiefoley - 31/1/2006 8:06:15 PM

ldelroc

Posts: 2
Joined: 31/1/2006

well once again the nominations were totally predictable. blah blah blah. i know i'm probably the only one here who thinks that brokeback mountain was a bit overrated. the acting was great though, heath ledger was fantastic, better than jake. i think sometimes its easier to have a showier role, which is why heath gets my vote out of the two. although she is unlikely to win, michelle has done pretty well for herself since she said goodbye to the creek - didn't she die anyway? she had very little screen time in the film, and has clearly got the nomination for her 'reaction' scene. oh well, at least she'll always remember being nominated -bless!
johnny depp's willy wonka was one of the best performances over the past year for me. hilarious! but the academy doesn't have a sense of humour as we know.
anyway, forget the oscars, check out the razzies! deuce bigalow has got to be one of the worst films i saw last year. as for j-lo, she isn't that bad an actress..hasn't anyone ever watched a keira knightley film???

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 68

RE: Good on yer - 31/1/2006 9:16:56 PM

jeanne

Posts: 8714
Joined: 19/12/2005
From: Gyllenhaalics anonymous

I'm so going to stay up all night . My frends are goingto come to my place. I have a Depeche consert in the evening after the awards but it doesn't matter. five hours of sleep are going to be enough.

< Message edited by jeanne -- 31/1/2006 9:18:06 PM >

(in reply to AndyT)

Post #: 69

- 31/1/2006 9:52:15 PM

Jacks User ID

Posts: 514
Joined: 30/9/2005

When they announce William Hurt's name I thought maybe the film and director might get nods too but alas it didn't happen.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 70

NO WAY!!!!! - 31/1/2006 9:52:31 PM

PhiLdO90

Posts: 101
Joined: 4/12/2005

You can say no if you want to me, but im really dissapointed not to see King Kong up for nomination for best picture. sure it got good nomination in some of the technical awards, but it had other great qualities as well. it is maybe because it got mixed reviews from different people. IM SO ANGRY IT ISNT THERE!!!!!!! IT WAS SUCH A GOOD FILM!!!!!!!!
Also I didnt see any batman begins nominations, although i just glanced through the nominations. anyway Steven Speiberg should win best director!!!!!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 71

- 31/1/2006 10:10:00 PM

Juliette

Posts: 17
Joined: 19/12/2005

Why the Narnia hate? I thought the effects in Narnia were much more convincing than King Kong (I also thought Narnia was a much better and more engaging movie than Kong, which may have had something to do with it). The effects in Narnia were incredible, very convincing - even if you didn't like the movie, what was wrong with Mr Tumnus shaking his hooves or the many centaurs charging into battle? The only dodgey effect was the bizarrely blue water, but I don't think that one hitch is worth baching the movie for!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 72

Disagree. (aside from all the BBM love, which is right). - 31/1/2006 10:40:54 PM

Empitomezzo

Posts: 1763
Joined: 24/10/2005
From: London

Keira can't act, OK?

There's some good (8 nods for my Brokeback), some bad (Don snubbed, a John Williams ego stroke in the form of Munich) and some ugly (Keira. Who, actually, isn't ugly, and that may have something to do with why she's nominated. Tramp.)

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 73

Potter snubbed? - 31/1/2006 10:41:40 PM

Pipkin3

Posts: 218
Joined: 12/10/2005

A few things: Michelle Williams for Best Supporting Actress!
Narnia was Ok effects wise, but Potter 4 ws more consistent in quality. I'm sure King Kong will win it again, just for doing another Gollum.
No Potter 4 for best music ors song? Outrageous.
Does anyone know what channel has it this hear, and the date and time it will be on? It took me ages to disocver it was on Sky last year. I hope the BBC have it again so I can watch it.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 74

RE: Disagree. (aside from all the BBM love, which is ri... - 31/1/2006 11:48:14 PM

Rascal

Posts: 155
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empitomezzo

Keira can't act, OK?

Agreed. She is without talent. The fact that she appears on the list discredits the Oscars entirely IMO.

(in reply to Empitomezzo)

Post #: 75

RE: - 1/2/2006 12:22:04 AM

James2183

Posts: 10204
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Juliette

The effects in Narnia were incredible, very convincing - even if you didn't like the movie, what was wrong with Mr Tumnus shaking his hooves or the many centaurs charging into battle?

Dudette, the beavers!! The Wolves!! The falcon "They come in numbers far greater than our own"!!

I liked Narnia as a film but the effects didn't deserve and Oscar nomination.

_____________________________

Hey bub, I aint finished with you yet!

"We do not beat the reaper by living longer. We beat the reaper by living well and living fully" - Randy Pausch

(in reply to Juliette)

Post #: 76

Looking forward to it. - 1/2/2006 12:53:00 AM

stargirl

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Scotland

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 77

Oscars - 1/2/2006 12:53:16 AM

MRBSQUINT

Posts: 39
Joined: 4/10/2005

Hey, Peeps, Mark here. The were some surprises for the Oscars. Terenace Howard shoud've been mominated for Crash, not Hustle & Flow. As gd a film Brokeback Mountain is I don't see it winning no more than 2 awards. Although I 'm sure they'll be some surprises come Oscar night, Hopefully the right folks will win.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 78

- 1/2/2006 12:59:08 AM

stargirl

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Scotland

i think that witherspoon should win, she is a great actress who hasnt been allowed to shine until recently because of her tendency to star in chick flick fluff. also i hope jake wins - his role in brokeback mountain wasnt a supporting role, it was a main one, and he was brilliant.
brokeback for best film(kinda goes without saying).
excited already. when and where is it shown on uk television?!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 79

One major snub - 1/2/2006 1:05:02 AM

lucysnowe

Posts: 4
Joined: 4/10/2005

I live in the US now (was living in London up until a couple of months ago) and I'm not sure if this is out in the UK yet or not, but The New World smacks the pants off of all of those movies. It should have been nominated in place of Munich which, besides losing its direction and pacing halfway through, ends with the WORST last two scenes in my recent memory. The New World, Terrence Malick and Q'Orianka Kilcher should have been nominated and should have won for best movie, director and actress of 2005. This film is so good, it reminded me that art has a soul.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 80

No surprises but that's not a bad thing - 1/2/2006 4:04:40 AM

lulu karma

Posts: 6321
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: on the east coast of the US

Some good choices for best picture. I'm certainly hoping to see Phoenix and Witherspoon receive awards for Walk The Line. Both certainly gave outstanding performances and their singing for the roles is nothing to overlook. Heath Ledger was phenomenal in Brokeback. So, I wouldn't be disappointed to see him walk away with best actor if it fails to go to Phoenix. Memoirs deserves an award in costume design and art direction. What a visually stunning film. Narnia was impressive in its visual effects. I hope for this category that it receives the award. Knightly has never impressed me as an actress but in supporting actress, I will have my fingers crossed for Weisz - an actress I feel has always done an astounding job.

< Message edited by lulu karma -- 1/2/2006 4:06:23 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 81

RE: Oscar Nominations Announced - 1/2/2006 9:27:14 AM

Timmy_Brisby_05

Posts: 2675
Joined: 16/11/2005
From: Grim up North

Glad to see Narnia on the list with few nominations!

_____________________________

Bolt: [gets up and looks up at the cats] Hello, hairballs.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 82

fuck the Oscars - 1/2/2006 9:28:52 AM

ithomson82

Posts: 110
Joined: 13/11/2005

i'll say it again, fuck the oscars.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 83

CINDERELLA MAN !!!!! Missing Oscar Nods !! - 1/2/2006 9:34:53 AM

Jonathan E

Posts: 1
Joined: 1/2/2006

OK so they gave "Cinderella Man" Oscar nods for editing & make-up, BUT they should have given at least a nod for Director,Actor & Film. IMHO I think this was THE best film of last year (Empire gave it 4 stars) The direction was almost flawless and the acting from Russell Crowe was extremely impressive. Obviously Mr Crowes antics outside the silver screen have obviously influenced the academy voters, but the academy should vote for what's on the silver screen and not let personal feelings cloud their judgement to what is an excellent movie.
I am very dissapointed and can only imagine Mr Howard and Mr Crowe's dissapointment also.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 84

does noone realise Narnia sucks! - 1/2/2006 10:33:38 AM

JonnyPitt456

Posts: 3
Joined: 18/1/2006

I do not see how Narnia or Kong could win effects. The lion and the gorilla were good but the effects focused so much on these main characters that the rest was shoddy! (the fox in Narnia and the dinosaurs in Kong are awful!). War of the Worlds however, has the best effects I have ever seen and it will be a disgrace to see it lose out on oscar night. Also, Brokeback mountain deserves all of its nominations. I am big rugby playing 'jock' and it still broke my heart.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 85

MUNICH - 1/2/2006 11:19:26 AM

taz_e

Posts: 355
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Somewhere between Life and Death

Being a Steven Spielberg fan (well hello he is the God of Cinema) I think that Mr. Freer said everything that I wanted to say. I only want to add something: I don't believe that Steven Spielberg will win anything although he deserves to get an Oscar for Director and Picture. This year's winners will be Lee, Hoffman, Hufman, Gyllenhaal and Keener. As for the Special Effects unfortunately King Kong.Not that Weta don't deserve it but I'd like War of the Worlds to get it

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 86

RE: Big Block Busters are out, Old School is in - 1/2/2006 11:37:15 AM

blanche

Posts: 225
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndyT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinatra

How many of the people slagging off Keira Knightley's nomination have actually seen the film?

That's an interesting point S. I was wondering myself. I've yet to see it. Kiera's not that bad, bit too much slating going on. She's a fresh new British actress. Give her a chance, she might even pick up an oscar in the future.

Exactly, I've read at least half a dozen posts on various threads claiming that "she's dreadful, and I've only seen the trailer/haven't seen the film".WTF!

I saw it, and thought she was fantastic in the role. She's still very young, and she definitely won't win, but I for one am glad to see her get a nod. I found her performance one of the most enjoyable of this year. By all accounts Reese deserves to win, I'm looking forward to seeing that one when it comes out.

(in reply to AndyT)

Post #: 87

RE: - 1/2/2006 11:40:31 AM

blanche

Posts: 225
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ant_1971

A shoe-in Reese Witherspoon will blub uncontrollably.

Nah, she's as hard as nails that one.

(in reply to Ant_1971)

Post #: 88

- 1/2/2006 11:42:19 AM

callumcostello

Posts: 54
Joined: 29/11/2005
From: Uganda

crime against acting if walk the line doesn't clean up. alhough terrence howard winning would be top bollocks.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 89

RE: - 1/2/2006 12:10:12 PM

Rikki

Posts: 13
Joined: 22/12/2005

I don't dislike Keira Knightly. I think she's a decent actress and haven't really hated any of her films I've seen. I think the reason I was surprised about her nom for Pride & Prejudice is because a.) I don't like it (Never watched the TV series, just not a fan) and b.) I thought there were such strong performances from women this year that strike me as so much better than what I've seen of Keira in the trailer (yes yes I know can't judge from the trailer but its just my opinion. And opinions always change so if I do for some reason watch the film I might decide that she deserves it).

I will of course support my argument with evidence like any good film scholar would, but not right now cause can't think of any right this second.

And by the way does anyone actually know what channel the show will be on as there are loads of Posts asking the question but nobody is answering it. Might not have been decided yet i don't know.

(in reply to callumcostello)

Post #: 90