The academy snubs Mel.

[winston churchi]

Here is a suprise. The one movie people went out to see - in droves - the one movie that brought a light of hope to movie theatres - the movie that was well directed and acted WAS NOT nomianted for an Oscar. Instead, another list of boring films no one has seen or will see or will hear of again.
(last year Penn won for best actor I think but what the hell was he in? I cannt remember which is my point - who saw that movie?)

So needless to state, I will not waste my time watching this hours and hours long crap show that is continually declining in the ratings - I wonder why? Hmm. Let me think about that one.

Not that I planned to watch but I would have watched had Mels film been nominated for something.

So to all you academy members - maybe you should actually SEE the films you are voting for...at least the trailer....maybe that will clue you in on the fact that the films you choose are junk hence the low revenue they generate. If you at least watched a film - you might be able to judge more clearly. This is why the Oscars is loosing viewers each year...the only thing worth watch is your clown suits. That is funny!

 

[dmp]

Does anyone honestly believe there was an actor last year who gave a better performance than Jim Caviezel?

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm boycotting the Oscars too. We should start a website or something and get everyone to boycott them!

 

[winston churchi]

First we need to find people that actually WATCH the oscars ... outside of watching the freak show of halloween costumes they wear.

No there wouldn't be a better actor than Jim or a better director than Mel.

I honestly believe that these academy members don't really watch the films they vote for. I think they hear via promotions and other award shows (of which there are millions more) and go by that. For example , the Aviator is one nomiated but that is getting a lot of hype so I think these members just vote for it based on that and don't ever see the film. These academy members are made up actors / directors and what not so it is also to do with - who they know - who they like -polictics and so on -

So I have no intentions of recognizing them if they don't recognize anything decent in films.

Thumbs down to the academy once again for never going outside the norm of votes. Always the same nominees...always the same film and most of quite forgetfull.

 

[nakedemperor]

Does anyone honestly believe there was an actor last year who gave a better performance than Jim Caviezel?

Johnny Depp (Finding Neverland), Paul Giamatti (Sideways), and by far (By FAR) the best performance of last year was Foxx in Ray. 100% guarantee he'll get the Oscar.

 

[Mr. P]

I did a delete of post..I just misread one ,sorry...

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm boycotting the Oscars too. We should start a website or something and get everyone to boycott them!

I always boycott them just because I think it is one of the most boring shows on TV.

I also don't base my opinions on who I think is a good actor on these awards. I just can't think of something that I could possibly care less about than what empty-headed actors think of as the "best" documentary. When I found out Titanic won best picture all I could do was laugh, it was a terrible movie over all IMO and had almost nothing to merit best picture status. Maybe makeup for all those "dead" people in the water should get an award but Best Picture? Please...

 

[no1tovote4]

Does anyone honestly believe there was an actor last year who gave a better performance than Jim Caviezel?

The lady who played Mary comes to mind. She should get best supporting IMO.

 

[Dan]

I'm not a big fan of the Oscars either way, but I'll play devil's advocate.

Honestly, if the Passion hadn't been about Jesus, I don't think you guys would be cheering it quite as much. Jim Caviezel's acting was very good, when he was allowed to act, which was for the first maybe 20, 25 minutes of the movie. The rest was just him moaning and whatnot, not a moving performance, in my humble opinion.

The two or three flashback scenes were directed very well, made me wish the movie was about that, but that's a whole other argument we've already had. I guess I can't really give Gibson much credit as a director because the whole reason I didn't like the movie was because of his direction. The whole thing, to me, seemed very voyeuristic and almost sadistic on the way the camera would focus on Jesus' wounds. I get what he was trying to achieve and he did achieve it for many people, so I guess that's success enough for him.

And, on a film geek-ish note, Gibson plagarized himself, when Jesus is being nailed to the cross and sees Mary Magdalene in the crowd, it is shot in exactly the same way that William Wallace sees his wife in the crowd at the end of Braveheart.

Either way, I don't think you guys should be so upset. The point of this movie wasn't to win awards, it was to touch people, and it clearly touched all of you, so I wouldn't worry too much about the Oscars.