BAFTA Winners
BEST PICTURE: Slumdog Millionaire
BEST DIRECTOR: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
BEST ACTRESS: Kate Winslet, The Reader
BEST ACTOR: Micky Rourke, The Wrestler
SUPPORTING ACTOR: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
BRITISH FILM: Man on Wire
ANIMATED FILM: WALL•E
CARL FOREMAN AWARD: Steve McQueen, Hunger
FILM NOT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: I’ve Loved You So Long
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Martin McDonagh, In Bruges
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Anthony Dod Mantle, Slumdog Millionaire
VISUAL EFFECTS: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
MAKEUP and HAIR: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
PRODUCTION DESIGN: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
SCORE: AR Rahman, Slumdog Millionaire
SOUND: Slumdog Millionaire
EDITING: Slumdog Millionaire
COSTUMES: The Duchess
RISING STAR: Noel Clarke
SHORT ANIMATION: Wallace & Gromit: A Matter of Loaf and Death
ACADEMY FELLOWSHIP: Terry Gilliam
Posts
If the Oscars match 4/4 again with the BAFTAs this year, I will be incredibly happy.
ReplyDeleteEh, this year has become one of the most boring oscar seasons yet. I mean Slumdog is a fine film, but its gets pretty boring and predictable now that it's winning everything under the sun. I mean, there WERE other films released this year. Its almost like these awards groups are saying that it was the only film released all year that was worth a damn. What about TDK, Benjamin Button, Milk, The Wrestler, etc? My main concern with Slumdog winning everything is that it's really only doing so because it's a feel good movie in a dark time. How will he film be looked at 10 years from now? That's what bothers me about the oscars. Being awarded Best Picture not only is a high honor, but it inducts the film into a legacy. Best Picture winners should be able to stand the test of time, and IMO, Slumdog didn't even hold up to a second viewing. IDK, maybe I'm too cynical for my own good, but I really felt that there were at least 5 other films way better than Slumdog Millionaire. The Dark Knight, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Wrestler, WALL-E, and Milk were all simply better films IMO.
ReplyDeleteWell, Chicago won aswell...
ReplyDeleteBut I agree, this is just too predictible and it doesn't reflect how close these movies really are. Between Slumdog, Mr. Button, Milk and The Reader, I can't pick the best, because they are all great but so different. And Frost/Nixon is great aswell.
But Slumdog deffinitly doesn't deserve to win EVERYTHING this year.
I have to wonder if Slumdog would still have the support it does even if we didn't live in such a cynical and dark cultural climate. I mean, it's a great film, but I get the feeling that people are latching on to it simply because it is really one of the few underdog feel-good stories of the year, and we need optimism and hope for the underdog and common person in these dark times. If we lived in a more prosperous and optimistic time, would Slumdog still be king? Or would it simply become another underground sleeper hit for Danny Boyle? I think it's an important discussion, and one that should not be taken as a way of trying to discredit Slumdog, but rather open up the debate as to what made it so successful.
ReplyDeleteSee, I think you guys are looking at this list the wrong way. We need to be focusing on the positive things, like IN BRUGES WINNING FOR BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY!
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I could have called every single winner without reading them. Even last year had a little variety.
right on myles. im excited for in bruges. a well deserved win on top of a well deserved oscar nomination.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Mickey Rourke deserved this. A nomination yes, but a win here and a possible Oscar...no. He's good but in the end I think he's just being Mickey Rourke when he's not hamming it up opposite Evan Rachel Wood. Sean Penn, Frank Langella, or Richard Jenkins should win the Oscar. Penn and Jenkins were brilliant and Langella is long overdue for some kind of recognition.
ReplyDeleteSomeone is certainly upset about Rourke's win. You also sound hostile towards Rourke himself. Do you have a personal problem with the guy? Did you see the film? If so, I would recommend seeing it again and paying more attention to the layered subtlety of his performance. It's not intense and dramatic ala Sean Penn or Daniel Day Lewis. It's a far more subtle, truthful kind of acting that only comes along once in a while. You want to talk about hamming it up or scenery chewing? That's all Sean Penn ever does in any role, IMO, specifically Mystic River.
ReplyDeleteYeah Myles, at least last year had one or two left field picks and surprise winners, specifically Tilda Swinton and Mario Cotillard, as well as a few other unexpected tech wins (Transformers losing all three tech awards to The Bourne Ultimatum and The Golden Compass), etc. This year is just downright boring. *thumbs down*
ReplyDeleteBut I was ahppy to see In Bruges win screenplay :)
well I'm glad to see Slumdog win at the BAFTAs. it's a British film which has had phenomenal success around the world and deserves to be honoured by the British Academy.
ReplyDeleteYou may not think it's worth a second viewing but a lot of people do. I consider Slumdog to be superior to many past Best Picture Oscar winners, i'd take it any day over the likes of A Beautiful Mind and Million Dollar Baby, even No Country For Old Men.
I never said it wasn't "worth a second viewing". I merely said that the replay value of it isn't as high as I had hoped. The first time I saw it, I was almost overwhelmed by it, and left the theatre happy as a clam. However, the second viewing allowed me to see it with a bit more of a critical eye. There's nothing particularly wrong with the film, but in a way, that's exactly what's wrong with it. I don't deny that it certainly deserves praise, I'm not sure it deserves every single Best Picture award under the sun.
ReplyDeleteWhich of course, brings me back to the topic at hand. We have had two films (maybe three) that created world-wide phenomenons: The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionaire. What is it about these two films that made them so successful? I for one think that both had massive success due to the socio-political and cultural climate we now live in. Interestingly enough, the two films couldn't be on further ends of the spectrum. The Dark Knight is an epic, dark, deep masterpiece that deals with a lot more social fears and themes than any film of the genre has before, and Slumdog Millionaire is a classic rags to riches love story. Was the The Dark Knight so successful because of the fact that it was incredibly timely and reflective of our society? Was Slumdog Millionaire successful because it offers a modern day fairy-tale of sorts that provides escapism from these dark and cynical times? Or is it simply because the two films were great stories told well? I think it's a legitimate question and a subject worth discussing. :)
To Kevin:
ReplyDeleteI don't find anything too subtle in Rourke's performance and I have seen the film twice. He simply was being himself. The only difference between his character and his real life is that he's an out of work, loser wrestler instead of an out of work and sometimes lousy actor.
I would agree that Sean Penn chews major scenery in Mystic River, but that Oscar was not for his performance that year IMO. This is a year where he actually does deserve, but I think it will go to Rourke b/c of this "phenomenal" comeback he's having or to Frank Langella b/c he has gone unnoticed for so long. Penn disappears into the character of Harvey Milk and does so well b/c he was a person who was a little larger than life himself. He was a showman and politician which seems to play to Penn's strengths. I have nothing against Mickey Rourke unless his pretty ok performance robs someone like Frank Langella of a long overdue reward for a career of wonderful work.
Rewards should not be based on spending 15 years on a bender and coming back slowly with a pretty decent role after Shakesperean level craft in parts like Marv in Sin City and his roles in Once Upon A Time In Mexico and other smaller films.
Again, you do in fact come off as pretty hostile towards the role and the man himself. I never said Penn and Langella weren't great, I simply said that I though Rourke was better :)
ReplyDeleteAs far as your claim about Rourke simply being himself in the film, your claim has some grounds. But not in the way you are arguing it. I think what makes the performance so powerful is the fact that Rourke poured his soul into it because he knows that it is the role of a lifetime. The performance may bear a lot of similarities to Rourke himself but do you realize that he re-wrote a lot of his dialogue? Also, what makes the performance so great to me is that element of personal truth behind it. Yes, the character and Rourke have a lot of similarities, but that's not by accident. The role was written for him and somewhat by him. And I don't think that him winning would be in any way robbing Langella. IMO, Starting Out in the Evening was a more oscar-worthy performance than Frost/Nixon. Also, many veterans go largely unrewarded but not forgotten. Ask Peter O'Toole. He's one of the greatest actors in history and he's never won and oscar. Cary Grant, Hal Holbrook, etc.
I don't think Cary Grant not having an Oscar is a bad thing at all...though Peter O'Toole should have won at the very least for Venus at his last go round.
ReplyDeleteIf Rourke did rewrite his dialogue then I don't think he should be looking for screenwriter work. The whole 'broken down piece of meat' thing seems so forced and lame for some reason, the scenes where he interacts with real people in stores as well. I enjoyed the moments he shared with Marisa Tomei and that was about it.
Starting Out In the Evening was a much better performance and film for Langella, but he was overlooked once again so I would see a win this year as an acknowledgement of all his work and not just a charicature in a passable Ron Howard film.
There's really not much hostility that I'm feeling towards Mickey Rourke, I'm glad he's back, he makes Hollywood a little more interesting, I just don't think he needs to be given such a huge party for a decent role after a string of pretty left field ones. I loved him in Bar Fly and a few others, just not The Wrestler.
Makes sense, but a lot of people felt the opposite about Rourke's lines and the screenplay of The Wrestler. Most people I've talked to felt it was great because it was genuine and from his heart. Why don't you think Cary Grant should have won an oscar? IMO, Grant is probably the greatest screen actor in history. Also, IMO, if you want to give someone an oscar to celebrate a career of great performances, that's what a lifetime achievement oscar is for. I personally am not found of the tradition of "make-up" awards where you give someone an oscar for something when they really deserved it years ago for something else.
ReplyDeleteCary Grant, for me, always seemed to be playing the same character no matter what movie he was in. North By Northwest is probably my favorite film of his, but even that doesn't wow me all that much. I think he has always had the luck to be in some pretty great movies and by association thought of as great. He's a good actor, but not one I would put in the same league as some of his contemporaries.
ReplyDeletePer the make up awards, I think had Peter O'Toole won when he was nominated for Venus it could have been both for all his work and for that role alone because he was incredible. He carried it off so well too when he lost for the eighth(?) time (and to lose to Forrest Whitaker?!?). I would agree though that sometimes make up awards can be silly. Only if the preceeding work was mostly or all outstanding should it warrant an honor over the other nominees in a particular year. O'Toole would have been fine in my book b/c he is truly one of the greatest actors ever in film. Penn's win could have waited I think because Bill Murray was by far the best performance of that year and I think Penn won because he had a stack of nominations and it was just "his time."
What's really going to rub me the wrong way this year is Heath Ledger's posthumous win for a part that seems less amazing each time I see it. Josh Brolin is terrific as is Michael Shannon. Both those performances balance the comedy and tragedy of the character's lives. Robert Downey Jr. is just a whole lot of fun in Tropic Thunder and PS Hoffman is in the wrong category IMO.
I detect a general sense of hostility towards the way this year has turned out. I take it you really didn't like The Dark Knight, The Wrestler, and several other works did you? Though I must admit, claiming that Sean Penn should win for completely disappearing into the role of Harvey Milk and then saying in the same breath that Heath Ledger should not win for disappearing completely into the role of The Joker seems a bit contradictory and hypocritical if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say he didn't disappear into the role as well. He obviously did or else he would not have been battling whatever form of depression or mental anguish that role threw him into. I just think that without his untimely death this would not have gone as far as it has. It's a fun performance, dark and twisted, but an Oscar performance? I think not. It's his passing that has shot him to this level IMO. Had he been alive today I could see him as a Globe nominee, but then Academy members could have written him off in favor of the more traditional and 'serious' roles. Josh Brolin, James Franco, and Michael Shannon should be sharing this award. Shannon was probably the best part of Rev Road alongside Kathy Bates (Winslet was nominated for the better role I think).
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say I'm hostile to this year overall. I did enjoy TDK, but it needs some major editing to be something I could pop in anytime. The Wrestler pales in comparison to Requiem & Pi for me. Slumdog isn't the best film of the year, it's just the most enjoyable and accessible. The Reader was bound to get something and it just got more than people expected. The book was better but the movie was ok. I would have liked to have seen Gran Torino in its place or even Wall-E. Frost/Nixon was an unnecessary adaptation to film. Benjamin Button is a rehash, slightly comic, that really dragged on until the last thirty minutes. Milk is the one I think that finally brings a lot of great pieces together. From the script to the performances and Van Sant's direction and shooting style it all comes across so effortlessly and the period setting seems to fall away. Something that can be a period film and still relevant as well as great in every other aspect deserves recognition.
Sadly I think it will be Slumdog or Button in the end, ok movies but nothing that will last.
I've actually been hearing people say the same sort of thing lately. That as much as they loved Slumdog they thought Milk was a much better film. Personally, my top ten of the year goes
ReplyDelete1. The Dark Knight
2. The Wrestler
3. Slumdog Millionaire
4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
5. WALL-E
6. Milk
7. Iron Man
8. Che
9. In Bruges
10. Doubt
How does your top ten 10 list shape up?
In no particular order:
ReplyDeleteMilk(the best of the year)
Man On Wire
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Gran Torino
Slumdog Millionaire
Happy Go Lucky
The Wrestler(i'm still a sucker for Aronofsky and Tomei is great)
Wall-E
In Bruges
Let the Right One In