Originally posted by filmbuff:
I saw it last night. I thought it was very good but not great. It was visualy stunning, but the plot became too sentimental at times. The performances were solid, and I'l be surprised if Newman doesn't recive an Oscar nomination.
The Oscars recive far to much critasism. It seems like every time they don't coencide perfectly with people's choices, they say that the Oscars are out of their minds. I think Goodfellas should have won best picture in 1990, but Dances With Wolves was hardly a bad film. If they had given Independence Day best picture, then I would say that they are idiots. As for Titanic, I think it's a very good film, and I won't listen to anyone who says it's crap until they come up with a valid reason as to what's wrong with it. I can respest your opinion as long as you have an intelegent reason for it. "It's boring", just isn't enough to convince me.
The point I was trying to make is that sometimes the Oscars go a little over board. Did Titanic (I liked it BTW) deserve 11 Oscars? Was it equal to Ben-Hur? Did Lord of the Rings deserve 12 nominations? I don't think so. It's all opinion. Can you honestly say that you believe that Lord of the Rings is that great?
Also, the Oscars can't seem to make up there minds. Did Denzel Washington deserve his Oscar for Training Day? I think he is one of the greatest actors of today and was robbed of an Oscar many times. I think they gave it to him to "apologize" for him being robbed in the past. Same goes for Al Pacino's win in Scent of a Woman and Paul Newman's win for The Color of Money. Can you honestly say that those two actors greatest achivements were in those two films?
Oh, well. As I always say: Difference of opinion makes the world go 'round.
