Screen Actors Guild awards; Ray; Sideways

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Firstly, Johnny's speech was just classic.

 

*woman announcer* Here to present the Best Performance By a Female Actor...blah, blah, blah.... Johnny Depp!

 

Johnny, with Jack-beard and 'stache and Morty's bedhead, walks up to the podium and makes THIS grand speech:

 

"Hi."

 

*pauses, scratches head*

 

"Hi."

 

"The nominees for Best Actress are...."

 

*nominees..blah, blah, blah*

 

"And the actor goes to...Hilary Swank."

 

That's got to be the best speech I've ever seen ^-^

 

But...gah...he was robbed AGAIN!! Jamie Foxx won yet ANOTHER award for Ray, Sideways won best picture. So I'm curious... are 'Ray' and 'Sideways' really that good, ie, worth a rental?

[Nighthawk 0]

Yeah.

[godthedog 0]

'sideways' moreso than 'ray'. like, a LOT moreso.

[Ted the Poster 0]

Ray would just be mediocre if not for Foxx.

 

Depp wasn't robbed. There were better nominees, including Giamatti in Sideways(who WAS robbed by Eastwood).

[MrRant 0]

Never speak ill of Clint Eastwood.

[2GOLD 0]

Paul Giamatti looked like he didn't give a damn when they won the best cast award.

 

I don't blame him, screwed out of a nod for two straight years. Then when they win, the lady from Arliss talks forever about something.

[godthedog 0]

paul giamatti seems like the most chill guy ever. on the 'american splendor' commentary he just does not give a shit, just sits back and has fun.

[UZI Suicide 0]

Ray is not very good. Foxx made the movie.

[Guest sek69]

I just watched Ray, I don't see how people think that it sucked outside of Jamie Foxx. I think that Jamie's performance carried the movie, but it was a solid film on its own.

 

My only beef is that it ended in 1979, but then I guess it would have veered into unintential comedy to have a third act about him doing commercials for Pepsi and the PA Lottery.

[Ted the Poster 0]

Never speak ill of Clint Eastwood.

I love the guy. I just didn't think he was Oscar-worthy in MDB is all.

[Jingus 0]

Jamie Foxx was going to win the SAG, Golden Globe, and Academy awards no matter what.

 

Lemme break it down for ya. The following trends let you pick out the inevitable Best Actor award winner every single year, no shit (well, except for American Beauty, but that one surprised everybody). This is using the Oscars for examples:

 

1. About half the time, the winner is for playing a character who's disabled in some way: physically, mentally, diseased, whatever. Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot, Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman, and Tom Hanks in BOTH Philadelphia and Forrest Gump. If you want to count mental illnesses like antisocial disorder, obsessive-compulsiveness, or alcoholism, the list gets even bigger: Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas, Geoffrey Rush in Shine, Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets, Denzel Washington in Training Day.

 

2. Also, awards shows have a hard-on for fake voices. Affecting a foreign accent, speech impediment, or performing in a foreign language is like spanish fly for attracting gold statues. Just count 'em: Hoffman, Hopkins, Hanks, Rush, Roberto Benigni in Life is Beautiful Russel Crowe in Gladiator, and Adrien Brody in The Pianist all changed their voices or languages in some major way for their parts.

 

3. The third part of the Award Bait Quadruple-Shot is playing someone who really existed. Strangely, Rush is the only real example of this in the past few years, but it's a long trend that goes back to the earliest days of acting awards.

 

4. And finally, the awards people just love it when someone who used to be a wacky comedian suddenly starts doing serious movies and "real acting". The roll call: Hanks, Cage, Nicholson, Benigni.

 

 

So now, here we've got got former comedian Jamie Foxx, playing a disabled guy, who really existed, with a fake accent.

 

Any questions?

[Nighthawk 0]

Spanish fly doesn't really work.

[MDH257 0]

I don't get all of this "Ray sucks except for Jamie Foxx" talk.

 

Jamie Foxx is the entire movie. It's The Ray Charles Story and he plays Ray Charles. You can say the performence was better than the movie but saying that "Jamie Foxx was great, but the rest of it sucked" is like saying "'Dirty Harry' sucked, except for Clint Eastwood".

 

I thought the script and directing were competent (I'm not saying they were award worthy, but they didn't sink the movie). Once that's taken care of Foxx's performence is going to account for 90% of what makes or breaks the movie. Is there enough of anyone or thing else in "Ray" that is so horrible it drags down Foxx's performence and destroys the movie.

 

I'm not saying "Ray" deserves to win anything (I rank it third of the five best picture nominees and if I had a vote for best actor it would go to Don Cheadle). But everyone seems to be forgetting that Hollywood movie awards are not about who was the best who kisses the most ass, who spends the most money on their campaign, and who has momentum.

When "Ray" came out Foxx got his best actor momentum started. After the end of the year came and none of the other contenders had gone by him, his momentum was so much that he brought the picture, director, and writers along with him for the ride. That's why "Ray has all it's nominations.

[Jingus 0]

Spanish fly doesn't really work.

Quit being such a Coey.

[CBright7831 0]

4. And finally, the awards people just love it when someone who used to be a wacky comedian suddenly starts doing serious movies and "real acting". The roll call: Hanks, Cage, Nicholson, Benigni.

 

To bad we can't add Carrey to the list.

[Guest sek69]

3. The third part of the Award Bait Quadruple-Shot is playing someone who really existed. Strangely, Rush is the only real example of this in the past few years, but it's a long trend that goes back to the earliest days of acting awards.

 

Wasn't Hanks' character in Philadelphia someone who really existed?