Why Brokeback Mountain didn't win "the" Oscar

Because it's one of those movies that people pretend to like more than they actually do. Something like the Mona Lisa. It's good, but it's really not as good as it's been made out to be.

The acting is average, the story is average, everything about it is average. The only points in favor of it were the landscapes and the fact that these two guys managed to pull off the whole thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Because it's one of those movies that people pretend to like more than they actually do. Something like the Mona Lisa. It's good, but it's really not as good as it's been made out to be.

The acting is average, the story is average, everything about it is average. The only points in favor of it were the landscapes and the fact that these two guys managed to pull off the whole thing.

---

I want BuffDive Bay, a movie about two hot lesbians.

Quote:

---

Why Brokeback Mountain didn't win "the" Oscar

---

Because "the" Oscar is expensive ($$$)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Because it's one of those movies that people pretend to like more than they actually do. Something like the Mona Lisa. It's good, but it's really not as good as it's been made out to be.

The acting is average, the story is average, everything about it is average. The only points in favor of it were the landscapes and the fact that these two guys managed to pull off the whole thing.

---

HEY!!! a painting is NOT like a movie!!! whoever gave you that Idea!? :mad: U u U uuuUU... PINK nosey FROG! :o

I like the MonaLisa despite the fact that I have not seen the real thing, without pretending to like it MORE than I actually do, as you put it. :p

The only reason it was nominated was because it would have been seen as insensitive not to put it up for something (that and it's been a horrible year for movies in general).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Something like the Mona Lisa. It's good, but it's really not as good as it's been made out to be.

---

Da Vinci foresaw your comments and left a message for you 500 years ago.
Please click here to view the message.

With the thread subject, there is no way I'm clicking on that link. :lol:

I clicked on it. It borders upon work-safe and work-unsafe.

You are now in a state of quantum indetermination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oceanebelle

I like the MonaLisa despite the fact that I have not seen the real thing, without pretending to like it MORE than I actually do, as you put it. :p

---

If you had seen the real thing you wouldn't say something like that.
It's a very small painting, behind 10 cm's of safety glass. It's an overall mediocre painting..
There are much much nicer paintings in the same museum. (Louvre)

The only reason the Mona Lisa was made, was so Dan Brown could write about it.:P

Still think Batman Begins should have had more recognition. It is a shame the academy always snubs action/adventure/fantasy movies. King Kong had three oscars, the same as Crash, yet had no publicity whatsoever.

Besides, I generally consider that any recent film that wins Best Picture for reasons other than it being a good film to watch (being politically motivated for example) I tend to stay away from. I have only seen two of the winners since 96 because the academy no longer rewards the BEST film of that year.

Look at the Best Picture winners for the 90s and 00's
90 - Dances with Wolves
91 - Silence of the Lambs
92 - Unforgiven
93 - Schindlers List
94 - Forrest Gump
95 - Braveheart
96 - English Patient
97 - Titanic
98 - Shakespeare in Love
99 - American Beauty
00 - Gladiator
01 - A Beuatiful Mind
02 - Chicago
03 - Lord of the Rings:Return of the King
04 - Million Dollar Baby

You can see an obvious shift at the latter end of the decade to a specific type of movie (i.e. dreadful). From 90 to 95 I would agree with all the winners as being the best of that year, the others...well, were not apart from Gladiator and Lord of the Rings (which was only because of pressure from the first two not getting anything).