Chicago won the Oscar?!

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-03-24 03:54pm

Durandal wrote:Jesus, the trailer for The Two Towers (the one with the Requiem for a Dream remix)

Is that what the Kickass music is? I wondered why it wasn't on the official soundtrack.

AoTC should have got the visual effects and should have at least got nods for sound and editing IMO.

There's no FUCKING WAY Shit-cargo should have got best picture, just like there's no fucking way A Beautiful Mind (but a crap film) should have got it last year. TTT or GoNY (leaning towards GoNY) should have got Best Pic. My only hope is that Return of the King just rocks so much that it blows everyone away and wins every catergory that it's eligable for, therefor justifying the snubbing FotR and TT have recieved!

Still, there were some funny moments, Eminem winning Best Origional SOog and ,despite being pro-war, i loved Michael Moore's rant! Take that Shrubby!

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-24 06:00pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Why did Chicago win so many awards? I mean, 'Congratulations! You made Moulin Rouge:Part 2!'

Moulin Rouge was great. Do you realize how much work went into all the cinematography. The art director of that film was a genius.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-24 06:36pm

I was dragged to Moulin Rouge by a woman. I loathed, hated, despised, vomited upon that movie. But I got laid later that day by the same woman. So I think it's great. Best movie ever.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-03-24 09:13pm

fgalkin wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Why did Chicago win so many awards? I mean, 'Congratulations! You made Moulin Rouge:Part 2!'
Moulin Rouge was great. Do you realize how much work went into all the cinematography. The art director of that film was a genius.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Yes, but if it's set in 1900, then why the hell is all of the music from the 60s and 70s? I didn't get that part, nor did I understand what was going on in the rest of the movie. Sure, they might have done a good job with the cinematography, but they should have spent more time getting it ot make sense.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-24 09:35pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
fgalkin wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Why did Chicago win so many awards? I mean, 'Congratulations! You made Moulin Rouge:Part 2!'
Moulin Rouge was great. Do you realize how much work went into all the cinematography. The art director of that film was a genius.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Yes, but if it's set in 1900, then why the hell is all of the music from the 60s and 70s? I didn't get that part, nor did I understand what was going on in the rest of the movie. Sure, they might have done a good job with the cinematography, but they should have spent more time getting it ot make sense.

It is not a historically accurate movie. It never intended to be. Instead, it is a tribute to the pop culture of the 60s and 70s. Perhaps Luhrman tried to make the parallel between the spirit of the 60s and 70s and the Bohemian spirit of the late 19th cantury.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-03-25 01:54am

Chicago as Moulon Rouge II?!?! Please... Chicago at least had its own score and did well in actually using the musical numbers to advance the plot. Moulon Rouge was a musical without one single number original to it —the movie cribbed its score from 70s and 80s music. And when Jim Broadbent started singing "Like A Virgin", my dislike for that movie blossomed into full, burning hate. I loathe and despise MR for making me sit through that atrocity within the overall atrocity of the movie itself. Two hours of utter shit.

As for The Two Towers getting passed over for Best Film, this doesn't surprise me at all. Fantasy films will never break through that glass ceiling, and have been getting shafted by Oscar ever since The Wizard Of Oz got passed over for best film in favour of Gone With The Wind.