[OT] I'm a sad, sorry excuse.

[Doppleganger]

Be sure to see the new trailer for her upcoming horror movie, "Gothika". Looks really creepy.

(click on the picture to visit the site with the trailer)

 

[takyris]

Hunh. Halle Berry doesn't do it for me. Guess that's human nature for you.

Not denying that she's aesthetically beautiful, but I personally am not attracted to her. Possibly something in her personality. I dunno.

As for her acting ability... well, they don't usually give out Oscars to people with no talent whatsoever, so she's gotta be at least decent, right?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

As for her acting ability... well, they don't usually give out Oscars to people with no talent whatsoever, so she's gotta be at least decent, right?

I think you're giving the Oscars a LOT of credit. There is no day of the year when I see more confused looks and head scratching than the day after the Oscars.

Besides, we're talking about a woman who doesn't have the acting chops to give a believable performance as *Storm*, perhaps the single least complicated member of a comic book hero team. We're not talking about a performance that requires subtlety, nuance, or more than B-list skill. I haven't seen Monster's Ball personally, but I don't know anyone who was impressed by her performance. Of a half dozen people I know who saw it, the concensus is that it was a good movie but she was easily the least impressive thing in it.

 

[Dark Jezter]

As for her acting ability... well, they don't usually give out Oscars to people with no talent whatsoever, so she's gotta be at least decent, right?

I have little to no faith in the Oscars anymore. As Canis mentioned, the day after the Oscars is usually known for confused looks, head scratching, and comments like "How the hell did THAT movie win?".

For example, let's take a look at what movies have won Best Picture over the years: In 2002, The Two Towers lost to Chicago. In 2001, The Fellowship of the Ring lost to A Beautiful Mind. In 1998, Saving Private Ryan lost to Shakespere in Love. In 1996, Fargo lost to The English Patient.

Going back even further, we have Raiders of the Lost Ark losing to Chariots of Fire for the 1981 Best Picture award, and Star Wars losing to Annie Hall for 1977 best picture.

The only way I'd probably agree with the Academy would be if I were an art house film snob, but since I'm a regular joe who rates movies based on how enjoyable they are rather than "artistic merit", I find myself disagreeing with the Academy quite often.

 

[takyris]

I didn't mean to turn this into an Oscar-bash-fest, but really... perhaps the geek hackles are rising a bit out of proportion?

For example, let's take a look at what movies have won Best Picture over the years: In 2002, The Two Towers lost to Chicago. In 2001, The Fellowship of the Ring lost to A Beautiful Mind. In 1998, Saving Private Ryan lost to Shakespere in Love. In 1996, Fargo lost to The English Patient.

Going back even further, we have Raiders of the Lost Ark losing to Chariots of Fire for the 1981 Best Picture award, and Star Wars losing to Annie Hall for 1977 best picture.

Well, as somebody who liked both The Two Towers and Chicago, I was fine with the 2002 verdict. As someone who never saw A Beautiful Mind, I'm not in a position to judge -- I'm not a huge fan of Russell Crowe, and the movie seemed to be a Shine-like tormented brilliance movie. I'm not a huge fan of those movies, but if it was a really really good one, then it deserved to win. I loved Shakespeare in Love and liked Saving Private Ryan, and would have been fine with either of them winning. I wasn't a huge fan of Fargo, but I did like the nested storytelling of the English Patient.

My point is that, while I can understand your personal dissatisfaction with movies you liked not winning, I'm not sure I see that as a license to toss out the Oscars. Oh, wait... I'm in an SF forum... I'm supposed to be complaining that Spider-Man isn't up for Best Picture.

I certainly don't want to put myself in a position of defending Halle Berry, because a) I was unimpressed with her in the first X-Men movie as well and b) I'm not drooling over her like everybody else. But come on. Look at the way she acted on late night shows -- she obviously didn't take her role as Storm seriously and thought it was a bit stupid. It's likely that her agent pushed her into it in order to get her more recognition in the young adult market. One can dislike her in a particular role without completely discrediting her acting ability. Well, I can -- but according to your definitions, I'm an art-house snob. And if an actress who was respected in other performances was lousy in a particular movie, I'd chalk that up to bad casting.

In other words... I still think Jeremy Irons is a great actor despite having seen him in both Dungeons & Dragons AND The Time Machine.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Check it out! Even that ComicCon sign is ogling her!

"Hey baby, I may be two-dimensional, but I'm all man!"

 

[Gnome Berzerker]

Halle Berry belongs on this list, probably between Ms. Fawcett and Ms. Rubble.

Schwing!

 

[Dark Jezter]

Well, as somebody who liked both The Two Towers and Chicago, I was fine with the 2002 verdict. As someone who never saw A Beautiful Mind, I'm not in a position to judge -- I'm not a huge fan of Russell Crowe, and the movie seemed to be a Shine-like tormented brilliance movie. I'm not a huge fan of those movies, but if it was a really really good one, then it deserved to win. I loved Shakespeare in Love and liked Saving Private Ryan, and would have been fine with either of them winning. I wasn't a huge fan of Fargo, but I did like the nested storytelling of the English Patient.

A Beautiful Mind = Shine with numbers. I wasn't very impressed by it at all. I didn't like Shakespere in Love either, but I knew right away that it'd be loved by critics because it was a costume drama starring Gwyneth Paltrow. Critics love their costume dramas.

On an aside, I can honestly say that you're probably only the third or fourth person I've talked to online who liked The English Patient. Most people I've talked to found it insufferably slow and boring. I guess it's definately not a film designed for mass appeal.

My point is that, while I can understand your personal dissatisfaction with movies you liked not winning, I'm not sure I see that as a license to toss out the Oscars. Oh, wait... I'm in an SF forum... I'm supposed to be complaining that Spider-Man isn't up for Best Picture.

My lack of faith in the Academy is more than just dismay over movies losing that I feel should have won. It's mostly because I believe that the recipients of the various awards are decided more upon insider politics (you know, like who is the current darling among the Hollywood community, that kind of stuff) than whether or not they are the best in their respective fields.

I know that Spider-Man will never be nominated for Best Picture; the Academy is notorious for ignoring sci-fi and fantasy films unless they completely revolutionize their respective genres, like Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings.

I tend to look at it this way: 25 years from now, movies like Chicago and A Beautiful Mind will be all but forgotten, but you can bet that The Fellowship and the Ring and The Two Towers will still have millions of fans worldwide. It's not like you ever hear about Chariots of Fire and Annie Hall anymore, but everybody in the world knows about Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars.

In short, those are the reasons why I place the Oscars on the same levels as the Teen Choice Awards.

To the other posters: Sorry for hijacking the thread with my Oscar rant.

I certainly don't want to put myself in a position of defending Halle Berry, because a) I was unimpressed with her in the first X-Men movie as well and b) I'm not drooling over her like everybody else. But come on. Look at the way she acted on late night shows -- she obviously didn't take her role as Storm seriously and thought it was a bit stupid. It's likely that her agent pushed her into it in order to get her more recognition in the young adult market. One can dislike her in a particular role without completely discrediting her acting ability. Well, I can -- but according to your definitions, I'm an art-house snob. And if an actress who was respected in other performances was lousy in a particular movie, I'd chalk that up to bad casting.

In other words... I still think Jeremy Irons is a great actor despite having seen him in both Dungeons & Dragons AND The Time Machine.

Yeah, I know the feeling. I'm a big fan of Arnold Shwarznegger and consider him one of the greatest action stars of all time, despite having seen him in Batman & Robin and Red Sonja.

 

[Henry]

!?!? I think she's a very good actress. I hate dramas and Monster's Ball brought me near tears.

My problem with her is that, like 75% of the actors in Hollywood, she cannot play anyone but herself. The facial expressions, the voice inflections, the demeanor - everything from Leticia Musgrove, to Ginger the Hacker, to Bond's Jinx, is Halle Berry, judging from her appearance in interviews.

My target of a good actor is the ability to actually put on another persona, and make me believe they are an entirely different person, and very few fall into this category. Dustin Hoffman, Christopher Lloyd, (and believe it or not) Billy-bob Thornton and Angelina Jolie fall into this realm of character acting. But Berry, like Sandra Bullock, Sylvester Stallone, Harrison Ford, and many other actors, while entertaining, don't fall into the realm of strong ability to act IMO.

That said, I'll never find myself on a broadway stage or pulling down their salaries, and I don't begrudge them their money for their hard work; but in terms of pure craftsmanship, I can't rank her very highly. She's never portrayed a character that made me hate them, or feel sorry for them, or feel anything, really.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

It's not like you ever hear about Chariots of Fire and Annie Hall anymore

Whoa whoa WHOA there. Annie Hall is a great film and deserved an Oscar, and I love Star Wars. Annie Hall was quite simply Woody Allen's masterpiece, combining the absurdist comedy of his earlier works (What's Up Tiger Lily?, Bananas) and his later, more philosophical pictures (Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters). Maybe it's not watched obessively by teenagers, but that doesn't mean it's not a great film.

Chariots of Fire you can go ahead and hate on though. More people remember the Vangelis theme than the actual, y'know, story and actors and whatnot.