2015 Awards Season Discussion

[Rick Kitchen]

 

For me, Gone Girl is not the kind of movie I'd see in the theaters, especially hearing that people are laughing

 

People are laughing?  When?  Where?  Nobody laughed at the showing I was at.

[scarynikki12]

My show had some laughter, mainly during Amy's voice overs, but due to the nasty humor of the lines and the way Pike delivered them.  I wouldn't describe it as a funny movie but it had genuine, if mean, humor in it and that's what people would laugh at.

[AshleyN]

I don't remember if people were laughing in my theatre, but it wouldn't have bothered me if they were, since the fact that the movie didn't do away with the twisted humour of the book was one of the things I liked most about it.

 

I believe either Fincher or Flynn gave an interview just before the release where they talked about wanting it to be the sort of movie that people found funny, but felt kind of uncomfortable about finding funny, and I thought they achieved that tone.

 

EDIT: Found it

If tabloid TV confirms one central narrative in American lives, it's that homicide begins at home. ''I liken it to a National Lampoon record that was put out in the mid-'70s called That's Not Funny, That's Sick,'' Fincher says. ''That's the tone! You have to kind of be going, 'It isn't funny—but it is.''

 

There's also the Missi Pyle character, who's a pretty obvious parody of Nancy Grace.

Edited December 11, 2014 by AshleyN

[aradia22]

Oh, it's not that I have a problem with people finding parts of the movie funny. It's just that I feel like the energy of the audience can influence you too much. Laughter is a big one because I'm much less likely to (for example) cry if someone next to me is crying.

[BetterButter]

2015 Golden Globe Awards Nominations

[Skyline]

2015 Golden Globe Awards Nominations

Unbroken and American Sniper were shut out.

[JBC344]

I'm surprised by Unbroken, considering the HFPA adores Angelina and the early critic reviews are solid. I wonder if its a matter of not enough early screening opportunities.  American Sniper I'm not to shocked about.  There has been some controversy over the legitimacy of this "life story", that may be its biggest obstacle.

[ruby24]

Early reviews are solid? From what i've seen it's been getting panned. I think the Globes are trying to be more conscious of their star-loving image and are actively snubbing people whose movies they didn't like, no matter how famous they are. Remember when Ricky Gervais spent the whole night roasting them a few years ago for nominating The Tourist?

[JBC344]

Early reviews are solid? From what i've seen it's been getting panned. I think the Globes are trying to be more conscious of their star-loving image and are actively snubbing people whose movies they didn't like, no matter how famous they are. Remember when Ricky Gervais spent the whole night roasting them a few years ago for nominating The Tourist?

Interesting, from what I heard the movie is "good" not an overwhelmingly "amazing film" but "good". 

[Jediknight]

Unbroken and American Sniper were shut out.

As was Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, I know that wasn't on the list of favorites, but it was a fantastic movie and for crying out loud stop screwing over Serkis and his motion capture work.

[AshleyN]

Given our topic of discussion yesterday, I thought it was interesting that they nominated Gone Girl for both screenplay and director, but not picture. Especially since two of the other nominees in both those categories were comedies, and therefore not even in the same picture category.

 

And is Academy Award nominee Jennifer Aniston a thing that actually might happen? Because that's something I wouldn't have predicted a month ago.

 

I'm also curious which of those Best Drama actor nominees is going to get knocked out at the Oscars for Michael Keaton.

Edited December 11, 2014 by AshleyN

[vb68]

 

Interesting, from what I heard the movie is "good" not an overwhelmingly "amazing film" but "good".

 

I've seen outright pans and some that call it a "disappointment."  I even saw something that said the  POW portions could have used a more experienced director.

 

From the article at Deadline, I do find it very odd that the HFPA refused to consider Get On Up for the Comedy/ Musical categories.

Edited December 11, 2014 by vb68

[ruby24]

I think Jake Gyllenhaal gets kicked out for Keaton. I'm not totally sold on Steve Carell yet either- he was very popular on TV and that always helps with SAG and the HFPA, but the Academy can sometimes be snootier. He could be snubbed too.

 

I'd still be shocked if Jennifer Aniston makes it in at the Oscars. This is happening because it's a weak Best Actress field and there's an open slot to fill- that can lead to weird nominations like this, but again with the snooty Academy, there's a bloc of foreign and British voters who would probably not mark her name down, especially for a movie that's supposed to be really bad (Cake's reviews are rotten). I could easily see them going with Oscar favorite Amy Adams for example- she got nominated in Comedy/Musical but her film is backed by Harvey Weinstein and she's pretty much an Academy darling at this point (it'd be her sixth nomination in eight years!)

[benteen]

This crop of Best Pictures seem to be more forgettable than ever.

[SallyAlbright]

I think Jake Gyllenhaal gets kicked out for Keaton. I'm not totally sold on Steve Carell yet either- he was very popular on TV and that always helps with SAG and the HFPA, but the Academy can sometimes be snootier. He could be snubbed too.

 

I'd still be shocked if Jennifer Aniston makes it in at the Oscars. This is happening because it's a weak Best Actress field and there's an open slot to fill- that can lead to weird nominations like this, but again with the snooty Academy, there's a bloc of foreign and British voters who would probably not mark her name down, especially for a movie that's supposed to be really bad (Cake's reviews are rotten). I could easily see them going with Oscar favorite Amy Adams for example- she got nominated in Comedy/Musical but her film is backed by Harvey Weinstein and she's pretty much an Academy darling at this point (it'd be her sixth nomination in eight years!)

I think Aniston has a good shot, she is very well-liked and is getting good reviews so far even when the film itself hasn't (still hard to tell since the film isn't really out yet though). That coupled with Big Eyes getting pretty bad/disappointing reviews will hurt Adams, as much as I love her. I would have said that Marion Cotillard and/or Hilary Swank were likely contenders last week but now I have to say Aniston seems to be in a good position to take that fifth slot along with Witherspoon, Moore, Jones and Pike.

[methodwriter85]

I'm disappointed Carrie Coon didn't get nominated for Best Supporting in Gone Girl. She was fantastic.

 

And also someone who didn't have to get ugly, and didn't have a big crying fit or a big come-to-Jesus speech. Pike was amazing.And also someone who didn't have to get ugly, and didn't have a big crying fit or a big come-to-Jesus speech. Pike was amazing.

 

 

    Well, technically, Amy gets "fat" (like being a size 8 instead of a size 2) and cuts off her hair, so that kinda counts.

 

   I am rooting so hard for Rosamund Pike.

Edited December 14, 2014 by methodwriter85

[AshleyN]

Me too. It's so refreshing to see an icy, femme fatale lead who stayed cold and calculating all throughout the movie. Someone who wasn't apologetic for her behavior and didn't need a redemption "arc". And also someone who didn't have to get ugly, and didn't have a big crying fit or a big come-to-Jesus speech. 

Yeah, the Academy, and awards bodies in general seem to be much less receptive to women playing villains, or even morally ambiguous characters, than they are to men. Off the top of my head, the only women I can think of who won for playing villains are Kathy Bates and Louise Fletcher, whereas in the last decade alone for the men you have Heath Ledger, Christoph Waltz, Javier Bardem, and Daniel Day Lewis (and Day Lewis nearly won for a different villainous character just a few years earlier). The closest female examples I can think of in that time period are Monique (I think? I haven't seen Precious, but from what I understand her character is pretty abhorrent) and Tilda Swinton, but even in her case IIRC her character is portrayed as more desperate and vulnerable than the men I listed

and her story ends with her receiving a major comeuppance for her crimes.

Edited December 14, 2014 by AshleyN

[JBC344]

I would consider Tilda Swinton, Monique, and Charlize Theron's wins all for villainous roles.  

 

I just saw "Top Five" and I'm really surprised that Rosario Dawson isn't getting much buzz for Best Supporting Actress.  She is essentially playing the "straight man" in the midst of all these comedians, and really gives a great heartfelt performance.

[AshleyN]

I would consider Tilda Swinton, Monique, and Charlize Theron's wins all for villainous roles.  

I forgot about Charlize - I knew I was missing a big one.

 

I dunno, I still feel like they're a different brand of villain. I just feel like a woman would have a much more difficult time winning for a character along the lines of, say, The Joker or Anton Chigurh, characters allowed to be matter of fact or even entertaining in their evil, and who neither repent for their sins nor suffer any sort of grand comeuppance for them. Of course that could go back to the fact that women don't really get many opportunities to play that sort of character, especially when it comes to the type of prestige projects with big name directors that compete for awards.

Edited December 15, 2014 by AshleyN

[JBC344]

I forgot about Charlize - I knew I was missing a big one.

 

I dunno, I still feel like they're a different brand of villain. I just feel like a woman would have a much more difficult time winning for a character along the lines of, say, The Joker or Anton Chigurh, characters allowed to be entertaining or matter of fact in their evil, and who neither repent for their sins nor suffer any sort of grand comeuppance for them. Of course that could go back to the fact that women don't really get many opportunities to play that sort of character, especially when it comes to the type of prestige projects with big name directors that compete for awards.

It is interesting to ponder.  I guess it always depends on context to.  For example, as villainous as Heath's Joker was I found him to be wildly entertaining within the "Super hero world".  With that said I have to say I was much more affected and "scared" of the women that Tilda, Monique and Charlize played, maybe because the context was much more real.  

[AshleyN]

It is interesting to ponder.  I guess it always depends on context to.  For example, as villainous as Heath's Joker was I found him to be wildly entertaining within the "Super hero world".  With that said I have to say I was much more affected and "scared" of the women that Tilda, Monique and Charlize played, maybe because the context was much more real.  

Perfectly understandable, and I'm certainly not criticizing those characters or the wins for those actors. It's just always nice to have a variety.

[aradia22]

 

I dunno, I still feel like they're a different brand of villain. I just feel like a woman would have a much more difficult time winning for a character along the lines of, say, The Joker or Anton Chigurh, characters allowed to be matter of fact or even entertaining in their evil, and who neither repent for their sins nor suffer any sort of grand comeuppance for them. Of course that could go back to the fact that women don't really get many opportunities to play that sort of character, especially when it comes to the type of prestige projects with big name directors that compete for awards.

I don't think that's necessarily a goal to aim for. The extreme of that is a character with no depth. You can have a showy or impactful performance but it's likely not going to be the performance with a lot of admirable acting qualities (creating an inner world for the character, giving a nuanced, layered performance, etc.). Of course, that's an extreme version. The opposite extreme is a character where everything is laid out. Character X became an ambulance driver because the ambulance driver was the one who comforted her after her mother committed suicide. And the reason she drinks is because her abusive father was an alcoholic, etc. etc. Both extremes are uninteresting for different reasons. 

 

I think this is different from the old pre-Code idea of whether or not a character has to be "punished" for perceived wrongdoing or to repent in some way. 

[AshleyN]

I don't think that's necessarily a goal to aim for. The extreme of that is a character with no depth. You can have a showy or impactful performance but it's likely not going to be the performance with a lot of admirable acting qualities (creating an inner world for the character, giving a nuanced, layered performance, etc.). Of course, that's an extreme version. The opposite extreme is a character where everything is laid out. Character X became an ambulance driver because the ambulance driver was the one who comforted her after her mother committed suicide. And the reason she drinks is because her abusive father was an alcoholic, etc. etc. Both extremes are uninteresting for different reasons. 

 

I think this is different from the old pre-Code idea of whether or not a character has to be "punished" for perceived wrongdoing or to repent in some way. 

I don't disagree with you that this type of character can go very wrong. But it can also, and has also, produced some of the most memorable characters in movie history. And it can go the other way too, there are times when attempts to give a villain depth goes too far takes away from the qualities that might make them interesting or scary in the first place. 

 

Funny enough, one of my favourite parts of The Dark Knight was when they played with this idea, and made it seem like they were giving The Joker a tragic backstory, only to reveal that he was bullshitting and making up different stories as he went. It totally served the whole unpredictable, agent of chaos nature of the character in that film.

 

Anyways, both approaches can be done well and done poorly. Like I said, I just like to see variety.

[ancslove]

I kind of think Ledger's win for the Joker is an anomaly, or at least an outlier.  Usually, such genre roles and films don't get anywhere close to the big Oscar nominations, let alone wins.  But Ledger had already been nominated before for Brokeback Mountain, so he had credibility, and his recent death gave his nomination extra push.  I'm not saying that his win was undeserved!  But I do wonder if he would have won, if he'd still been alive.

[JBC344]

I have to say I usually have no problem pointing out when I think an actor is getting the "make up" Oscar, but I honestly believe that Heath would of won even if he was alive.  The fact that the Dark Knight was a critically acclaimed movie and all everyone was talking about was Heath's Joker.

[ruby24]

I doubt he would have won. In fact, I think had he been alive, the victory would have been in getting him nominated at all. Comic book movies just don't appeal to the Academy, period.

[JBC344]

I doubt he would have won. In fact, I think had he been alive, the victory would have been in getting him nominated at all. Comic book movies just don't appeal to the Academy, period.

That is because no comic book movie had ever been done as well as The Dark Knight.  The backlash over The Dark Knight not receiving a best picture nomination is what lead the Academy to increase the Best Picture nominees.  

 

I also think we tend to forget that the Academy is an ever evolving collection of people.  The acting branch of the Academy is who compiles the actual acting nominees.  If Johnny Depp can receive a best actor nomination for POTC, and Robert Downey Jr can receive an Oscar nomination for Tropic Thunder than there is no doubt in my mind that Heath would of got the nomination dead or alive.

[AshleyN]

Critics Choice Nominations

Edited December 15, 2014 by AshleyN

[Rick Kitchen]

Boyhood is garnering tons of critics' awards for Best Picture, including the latest, San Francisco Film Critics Award.  It's definitely a contender for Best Picture. Linklater won Best Director and Michael Keaton won Best Actor for Birdman. Julianne Moore won Best Actress, but I'm not sure she'll even get an Oscar nom.

 

Best Supporting went to Edward Norton and Patricia Arquette.  Birdman and Boyhood are cleaning up.

 

Best adapted screenplay went to Inherent Vice.  Surprising it wasn't Gone Girl.

[Shannon L.]

I have a feeling that it's going to be a disappointing awards season for me.  I wasn't as impressed with Birdman as a whole as others.  There were some technical things that were great and I think Ed Norton is worthy of a nomination (and would be ok with a win), but I feel like it's going to win big this year.  I haven't seen all of the films, but plan on trying to.  I have yet to see anyone better than Eddie Redmayne and Rosamund Pike, although Jake Gyllenhaal was a close second for best actor so far, imo.  I saw Foxcatcher today and have mixed feelings about it, but though Mark Ruffalo was fantastic.  If I didn't know it was him, I'd have spent a while at the beginning of the movie wondering who he was because he looked familiar, but was so good at getting into character that I wasn't sure.  I'm happy that Naomi Watts was recognized by SAG.  I loved Gone Girl.

 

I'm going to try to see The Imitation Game this weekend.

[vb68]

 

Julianne Moore won Best Actress, but I'm not sure she'll even get an Oscar nom.

 

I think it will be an absolute stunner at this point if she doesn't even get a nomination.  Most articles I've seen put her way out in front for the win.

[AshleyN]

The success of The Grand Budapest Hotel so far is a bit of a surprise isn't it? I haven't seen it yet (I actually tried to watch it on Netflix earlier, but couldn't get it to play), but it's always nice to see awards bodies remember that there can be good movies released before October.

[slowpoked]

 

Well, technically, Amy gets "fat" (like being a size 8 instead of a size 2) and cuts off her hair, so that kinda counts.

 

I guess, what I meant was, ugly it up for the role itself, like what Theron, Aniston, Reese and Kidman (off the top of my head) has done. I liked that Amy is an NY socialite, loved her money and was worried about her looks going away.

 

Usually, the glamorous, regal women roles only get nominated if you're playing the Queen. 

 

I dunno, I still feel like they're a different brand of villain. I just feel like a woman would have a much more difficult time winning for a character along the lines of, say, The Joker or Anton Chigurh, characters allowed to be matter of fact or even entertaining in their evil, and who neither repent for their sins nor suffer any sort of grand comeuppance for them.

 

Yeah, that's what I loved about the Amy character (and greatly aided by the way Pike played her). Pike also mentioned this in one of her interviews - it's very rare to get roles like this for women, because as much as the society have advanced in their thinking with regards to women's roles in the society, there's still that underlying belief that women should act and behave a certain way, and if it's outside of these parameters set, they're psycho. They're evil. They're screwed in the head. Something's wrong with them. Women should only act in a good way. Men can act gentlemanly, powerful, jerky, piggish and society will just dismiss it as "men being men". 

 

In that regard, I also loved the fact that Amy "won" in the end. She did not suffer for her sins, or got karma. Tyler even laughed it off and said they should just profit from it. She clearly got the sympathy of the public and even the police knows it will be an uphill battle to turn that tide away from her. 

 

It's a villainous and amoral character in the lead role that's very compelling and will get the audience (at least in my case) thinking. I loved it.

 

I think there's some progress being shown here. Last year, Sandra got a role that normally would have been reserved for a man in a sci-fi movie and got nominated for it. This year, there is an "anti-woman" role in that will be a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination this year. 

Edited December 16, 2014 by slowpoked

[Rick Kitchen]

Can Boyhood win Best Picture without Linklater winning Best Director?

[ruby24]

It could, but I think it's unlikely this time, since Boyhood is also considered a major directorial achievement.

 

Unless, after the last couple of years of splits, there's now a whole new mindset when it comes to Best Picture and Director being fundamentally linked. Maybe in this new era of up to 9 BP nominees and only 5 directors, we're going to start seeing splits all the time, and the two categories will be more and more removed from each other.

 

I hope not- ever since the beginning there's always been a perception that the best film means it was directed the best in some way. I agree with that and I wouldn't like to see the two categories split up that way.

[aradia22]

 

I hope not- ever since the beginning there's always been a perception that the best film means it was directed the best in some way. I agree with that and I wouldn't like to see the two categories split up that way.

I wouldn't mind it. I think it's too easy to attribute the qualities of a film (good or bad) to the director and forget about the other people involved in the project, especially if you're talking about a big name director and/or a prestige flick (as opposed to say a non-Michael Bay action film where most people aren't really like damn that.... guy whose name I don't know for making this movie suck). A film can have a good script, strong visual style, and good performances without necessarily having a good director. It's unlikely because if everything else is great the director is probably also great but that doesn't mean he or she is responsible for everything that makes the project a good movie.

[JBC344]

I wouldn't mind it. I think it's too easy to attribute the qualities of a film (good or bad) to the director and forget about the other people involved in the project, especially if you're talking about a big name director and/or a prestige flick (as opposed to say a non-Michael Bay action film where most people aren't really like damn that.... guy whose name I don't know for making this movie suck). A film can have a good script, strong visual style, and good performances without necessarily having a good director. It's unlikely because if everything else is great the director is probably also great but that doesn't mean he or she is responsible for everything that makes the project a good movie.

I agree for me, there have been lots of movies that I thought were Best Picture, but it wasn't because of the Director's style.  Or I see a movie and think that the Direction of the movie was amazing but not much of the other parts of the movie.

 

Then there are some movies that I think are intrinsically linked and so dependent on the director.  Boyhood would be an example of that, that movie has Richard Linklater all over it, or say a Quentin Tarantino movie where you see his direction down to the smallest piece.

[ruby24]

I think that too many people attribute a director's "style" to something like visuals, when directing involves all kinds of things, from getting a great performance out of an actor, to the way the film was put together in the editing room. The director is still the person most responsilble for the way a film turns out.

[JBC344]

That is true, but not all director's have the same amount of power over their movies.  I think when it comes to independent movies, or movies made by established directors they probably have the most power or control over what we the audience see.  We here all the time about the studio vs director having final cut, or how the editor can be the gatekeeper to a great movie.

 

I'm thinking of "Pretty Woman" as an example, when Julia Roberts and Richard Gere saw an early screening they admitted to turning to one another and said "I had no idea that we made a comedy".  Meaning that the editing was more influential than the "director's vision".

[aradia22]

 

I think that too many people attribute a director's "style" to something like visuals, when directing involves all kinds of things, from getting a great performance out of an actor, to the way the film was put together in the editing room. The director is still the person most responsilble for the way a film turns out.

Again, I have to disagree. I think it's a case by case basis. I always hear people talk about how Steven Soderbergh pulled a great performance out of Jennifer Lopez in Out of Sight. But how many people are like, damn, that director did a great job instructing Daniel Day Lewis or Meryl Streep on how to do their jobs. I think too much of the visual style is attributed to the director when it could be the cinematographer, DP, art director, costume designer, etc. contributing a lot to the look to the look of the film. And yes, as JBC344 points out, not all directors cut their movies. Kevin Smith (an independent director) cuts his own movies. But Scorsese doesn't. He might be in the editing room (I don't know enough about him to know) but not all directors are. Again, I think it's a case by case basis which is why I wouldn't mind the Best Director and Best Picture awards going to different movies.

[Oreo2234]

 

nd yes, as JBC344 points out, not all directors cut their movies. Kevin Smith (an independent director) cuts his own movies. But Scorsese doesn't. He might be in the editing room (I don't know enough about him to know) but not all directors are.

 

Directors don't usually edit the film entirely by themselves but most work with the editor.  

[JBC344]

It really is a case by case basis.  The Director is not always the most powerful/influential person on set.  Sometimes that may be the studio, producer, or sometimes even the actor.  There are a lot of cases where the director is someone for hire in the sense that they are fulfilling someone else's vision.

 

I can see someone like Richard Linklater being awarded Best Director, just because being able to pull off that concept and make a really good film, even if the film itself isn't the Best Film of the year.  Sort of like making an outrageously ambitious "B grade" movie, may be more appealing to some than a conventional "A grade" movie.

[Princess Sparkle]

I wouldn't mind it. I think it's too easy to attribute the qualities of a film (good or bad) to the director and forget about the other people involved in the project, especially if you're talking about a big name director and/or a prestige flick (as opposed to say a non-Michael Bay action film where most people aren't really like damn that.... guy whose name I don't know for making this movie suck). A film can have a good script, strong visual style, and good performances without necessarily having a good director. It's unlikely because if everything else is great the director is probably also great but that doesn't mean he or she is responsible for everything that makes the project a good movie.

Bingo! That's what always annoyed me in the 2010 awards season, which was a year I really think Best Director and Best Picture should've been split. I can get behind the King's Speech winning Best Picture, but that Best Director award should've been David Fincher's - his direction and vision were all over The Social Network, and helped it become an actual serious award contender instead of "that movie about Facebook." Whereas, I don't think Tom Hooper had to work all that hard to get good performances out of his actors, and his direction on Les Mis tells me that he's not necessarily that fantastic of a director to begin with (certainly not bad...but not great either). Edited December 19, 2014 by Princess Sparkle

[Rick Kitchen]

Entertainment Weekly's predictions for Best Picture nominations:

 

Sure Things:

The Imitation Game

Birdman

Selma

Boyhood

The Theory of Everything

 

Serious Threats:

Foxcatcher

Unbroken

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Gone Girl

 

Potential Spoilers:

Whiplash

Wild

American Sniper

 

American Sniper?  Really?

[Shannon L.]

I just got back from The Imitation Game.  I thought it was outstanding.  I left The Theory of Everything thinking that no one could possibly come close to Eddie Redmayne's performance, but Benedict* is going to give him a run for his money, imo.  I just don't understand the nominations for Keira Nightly.  I don't have the hate that some people seem to have for her, so I went in with an open mind, but, with the exception of the last scene, where I thought she kicked it up a notch to where I almost forgot it was her, I didn't think she did much in the way of acting.

 

*This is the first time I've ever seen Benedict Cumberbatch in anything which is why I couldn't imagine anyone coming close to Eddie Redmayne.

[blixie]

 

guess, what I meant was, ugly it up for the role itself, like what Theron, Aniston, Reese and Kidman (off the top of my head) has done.

? Reese won her Oscar for playing June Carter Cash, a glamorous talented beloved entertainer, nothing ugly about that role, and to this day I think she  looks so great with that hair color.

[JBC344]

? Reese won her Oscar for playing June Carter Cash, a glamorous talented beloved entertainer, nothing ugly about that role, and to this day I think she  looks so great with that hair color.

I think that is hands down the most beautiful I have ever seen Reese look.  Dark hair really does look great on her.  Sad to say but when she was arrested last year I believe her hair was dark, her mug shot was one of the best pictures she has taken in the last few years.

[caracas1914]

Rafe Feinnes in "Grand Budapest Hotel" gave such a nuanced comic performance but alas he may be overlooked for best actor in the Oscar race  because he's not "dramatic" enough.  Hate how comedic acting , which IMO is more finely tuned and difficult to get the  right timing,  gets trumped by the "serious" matter most of the time.

[Shannon L.]

 

Hate how comedic acting , which IMO is more finely tuned and difficult to get the  right timing,  gets trumped by the "serious" matter most of the time.

Agreed.  While I've been heralding Benedict Cumberbatch and Eddie Redmayne, I do think comedy doesn't get enough recognition (nor do I think more subdued dramatic roles get enough recognition).  I was watching My Cousin Vinny last night for the umpteenth time and I still marvel at how fantastic Marissa Tomei was in that role. 

 

I can't comment on Grand Budapest Hotel because I haven't seen it.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Shannon L.

[JBC344]

Agreed.  While I've been heralding Benedict Cumberbatch and Eddie Redmayne, I do think comedy doesn't get enough recognition (nor do I think more subdued dramatic roles get enough recognition).  I was watching My Cousin Vinny last night for the umpteenth time and I still marvel at how fantastic Marissa Tomei was in that role. 

 

I can't comment on Grand Budapest Hotel because I haven't seen it.

And it took Marissa twenty years for people to finally accept her Oscar win, and not continue on with that stupid rumor that the wrong name was read.