Danny Boyle is currently unemployed

Maybe he should direct a movie that people will enjoy watching instead of oscar bait like Slumdog. It wasn't really that good... and I have zero interest in Milk and some people I know who have seen it says it's not really that great. Man, I remember back in the olden days when the Oscars actually awarded movies that were actually really good...

It's possible that you just simply don't like great movies...

Not to say the Academy is prone to idiocy. Hellooooo Crash/Titanic/Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

whysoserious: Wait, are you saying that Crash was a good movie? It wasn't. It really, really wasn't. Slumdog, however, was fantastic.

Ken J: Slumdog was far from Oscar bait. That's such a ludicrous thing to say. It was such a long-shot for any awards. It didn't even have distribution as of September '08 (when it played at Fantatastic Fest). If you didn't like it, fine, but it was clearly more of a crowd-pleaser than an awards-grabber.

Um, I think you needed to point out more than just Crash... Benjamin Button aka Forrest Gump 2, Titanic aka 3 hour Titanic documentary with cheesey love story... yah... wonderful...

And if you look at all of the movies that have won for best picture in the past, from 1984 to 1995, I've seen 10 out of those 12 films and liked most of them, but from 1995 until present, I probably liked maybe 1 or 2 of those 13... So to me, the type of movies they've been giving oscars to lately have really gone downhill, mostly politically motivated awards.

Anyway, all it what you want, if it was a crowd pleaser, obviously you mean a different crowd than the one I belong to. Even my sister who tend to like very different types of movies than I do, ones I would call boring or obscure, even she didn't like Slumdog that much. So not the crowd she belongs to either...

But eh, who cares about awards, why do you need a panel of snobs to tell you that the movie you like is good so you can feel better about your own opinion? I can care less what they pick to win and what they don't, makes little to no difference in my opinion of the film...

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all of the technical aspects of Titanic, all of the detail put into the Titanic itself and the directing was very good, (obviously I'm a James Cameron fan) but I simply didn't enjoy the movie. For me, what I enjoy mostly in movies are the characters. If I can't relate to the characters and I don't empathize with their situation, I can care less about it. I think that's where Slumdog lost me, I can care less what happens to those characters, and I can care less about their situation. Not to mention, I'm a bit sick of the whole jumping timeline gimmick that so many movies do now. They think it's clever, but it's been done so many times, it's not that clever...

Haha I have been calling Benjamin Button "Forrest Gump with a different affliction" since I saw a preview screening four months ago. I think Titanic is a fun movie, and it's good in the tradition of romance epics, but it didn't deserve Best Picture. I picked on Crash because that one was flat-out awful.

Again, you have a right to like or not like whatever you want. Obviously you
watch a lot of films (as do I). I haven't been happy with a lot of recent Best Picture winners, either (most notably Chicago). What I'm saying is that Slumdog Millionaire was not made with the same Oscar aspirations as The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or The Hours (for example). It was made by a man who is used to making unusual low-to-middle budget films that are well-liked by both critics and audiences. Usually, however, this doesn't translate in to awards. Again, when this was shown to an adoring audience at Fantastic Fest (I guess that's one of the crowds that loves it), Danny Boyle told them that they still didn't have a distributor, so it might get a small release but he really wasn't sure. That doesn't sound like someone preparing his two-page spread of "For Your Consideration" ads in his head.

What "jumping timeline" gimmick exactly are you talking about? I guess we just differed in that I cared about the characters. Can we both just agree that Crash is the worst movie to every win Best Picture? Btw, thank you for the intelligent response and lack of personal insults.

I just saw this gem of a movie and it was amazing. Visually appealing, historically relevant, and the acting was right on. I would go see it again, which in my eyes is the mark of a great movie. I loved how the story moved all over the "Map of India" showcasing the actors as well as this beautiful country. I know that the Indian Government didn't appreciate it but it does show life as it is rather than what we wish it were. I would highly recommend seeing it yourself on the big screen.

"I know that the Indian Government didn't appreciate it but it does show life as it is rather than what we wish it were."

I'm glad you said that. I heard about people walking out because they were "offended" by the poverty. They should be upset by the poverty, not offended by it. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Oh no. A minor typo. I was saying the Academy is indeed prone to idiocy and was listing those films as an example of said idiocy. And good call on Chicago and The Hours by the way. I'd push Juno for best original screenwriting forward as well (I don't hate it as much as others but dear lord some of the dialogue was achingly obnoxious).

That being said I, and anyone else I have talked to (That crowd I guess), thought Slumdog Millionare and Milk were both fantastic. And I'm usually one to dislike Gus Van Zant.

Ahhh, phew. I thought that may be what you meant. I was a bigger fan of Slumdog than Milk. I suppose I couldn't help but compare it to "The Times of Harvey Milk," which I thought was a lot better. I love Gus Van Sant, too (espcecially that adorable Hanson music video :) The people I know are mixed on Milk, but everyone likes Slumdog.

And Juno...I think that is the worst screenplay to ever win an Oscar. I really can't think of another that was so weak.

Oh, yeah, to Ken J: You do not need a panel of snobs to tell you what films to like. My three favorite films of this year were Let the Right One In, In Bruges, and The Fall. All three won zero Academy Awards (althought LtROI may next year).

I have to relate to that Ripley. If you look at the list of nominees that DIDN'T win, I probably liked a whole lot more of those. But everyone knows why Sean Penn won for Milk, it's because the Oscars knew Penn would be outspoken politically and the academy wanted to make it known their stance on Preposition 8. They knew Penn will get up on stage and be his typical pompous self.

I heard Let the Right One In is supposed to be really good. I should probably check that out sometime.

To Ken J: Hm. I suppose I could see why you dislike Milk. Biopics are not exactly unique and Harvey Milk's story requires a certain political/philosophical mindset. But to go so far as to say Sean Penn doesn't deserve his win to the point you believe it was a conspiracy...I don't know. It's difficult to take you seriously. Mickey Rourke was the only thing even competing this year as far as I'm concerned. Both actors brought a lot humanity to their roles.

But yes Let The Right One In was certainly snubbed of a Best Foreign Language Film nomination...although Ripley seems to know something I don't. Did it not qualify for nominations this year or something? I believe it had an October release...

It's not as much conspiracy as a common practice with the Academy. They always award people they know are more outspoken if they know they support the same side of the argument. Don't act like you haven't noticed this. The actor with the same political views as the academy always win. They like having people like George Clooney, Sean Penn, Adrien Brody, and others on stage. Mickey Rourke probably deserved to win more, but he's not known to be as outspoken. Sean Penn on the other hand, being the hypocrite that he is, they knew he would make a statement regarding preposition 8 in his speech, even though he supports countries that do not give ANY rights to gays like Cuba and Venezuela. What a moron.

It's not a conspiracy, it's simply the fact that they control who wins so they get to inject their own political views. Like everything else in the media, it's biased, one way or the other.

HA! Mickey Rourke isn't outspoken?! Good one. I'm guessing you didn't see his acceptance speech at the Independent Spirit Awards.

I mean I won't deny that the Academy may be inclined to lean towards a movie with timely subject manner but that's because they are HUMANS. And a human is likely to be more stricken by material they relate to. Not the same as a political move.

This universal lauding of Harvey Milk (Which you haven't even seen and yet you make a conclusion that he is less deserving than Rourke which makes me think you have a prejudice in place of either Penn or something political) is all just a set-up so Sean Penn can have an anti-Proposition 8 speech? Is it not possible that he's just a great actor? I'm not going to argue over whether or not he's a good person. Sure we could weigh him hitting post-Katrina New Orleans before FEMA versus him contradicting himself and a case of Bono syndrome but it's not the matter at hand. The man is a damn talented actor and if you say otherwise then we may as well not even have a discussion.

And about Sean Penn, I remember back when I enjoyed his performances. But lately there have been so many movies of his that I HAVE seen where I thought he was just way over-acting like Tom Hanks and Nicolas Cage does lately. I forgot the exact name 28 grams, something grams, with that other snake Tim Robbins, an example of a jumping timeline movie that haven't been clever since Pulp Fiction. That movie blew, didn't care for any of the characters in that movie, if they all would have been hit by a semi in the middle of the movie and there was nothing but mush left, I probably would have laughed for a good minute.

Then before that there was Mystic River. I don't know why it got so much praise, that movie SUCKED in my opinion. I felt Clint Eastwood dropped the ball there, but more than made up for it with Gran Torino. Oh, and wow, that idiot Robbins was in it too (Mystic River). What happened to him? He was good in Shawshank and many other movies, now I think he just sucks. Now all I see when I see him is him making death threats to people while preaching for peace at the same time...

But whatever, maybe Penn made a 180 and did well in Milk, I don't know, but I have a lot of friends who actually typically like movies that win Oscars. So their opinions are already different from mine on that, and they also say that Penn is a great actor, but they told me that his role as Harvey Milk was nowhere close to being his best performance and even they say they didn't think he should win. I trust their word because most of the time they can predict who will win each year with pretty good accuracy. But it makes sense WHY he won.

The funny thing is, in one sentence you're dismissing the idea as a conspiracy theory, yet in the next sentence you're trying to rationalize it for them by saying that everyone else is biased too... So which is it? Or do you believe everyone is biased and putting their political opinions in their decisions EXCEPT the academy? Like they are the only human beings in the world immune to that... And I find your wording weird. They "relate" to something, but it's not political... Could they be RELATING to a POLITICAL view that is skewing their decision? I mean, is that REALLY so far fetched to you? I guess you probably agree with their point of view, it's harder to see bias when it's in the same direction as you, people tend to notice contrast more.

Sorry, had to split it up, apparently I talk too much, lol.

I'm guessing halfway through my comment I tried to rationalize what you were implying. I still think the idea that the Academy voted just to hear an acceptance speech is ridiculous if I'm not being clear.

And if you think Penn's problem was overacting (Which one point we can agree on is that Mystic River was a little plodding and I was pulling for Murray when Penn won for that one) then you'll love Milk because it's a very subtle performance. I mean he doesn't portray him as some revolutionary outside of the establishment maverick or what have you. He plays it simple and he does it well.

Also Tim Robbins wasn't even in 21 Grams. And I don't see how you couldn't have felt anything for Watts and Del Toro's characters. And I could compile a lengthy list in which time skewing served a movie's story well but these are all arguments that have nothing to do with what we're talking about and just various Penn snipes that you're making which aren't valid in this discussion.

I don't know why I was replacing Benicio Del Toro with Tim Robbins in my head?? Either way, I didn't care for anyone. Either way, we're talking about Sean Penn, not Robbins anyhow, so nice try trying to use that blunder anyhow, A for effort.

And who exactly decides what is valid or invalid as a "basis" for how we perceive someone's acting ability? You like watching Penn and think his acting is good, I watch him and he's hit or miss, many hits before, mostly misses in the last few movies I've seen of him. If you think your opinion is the ultimate be-all end-all standard, then hey, you think highly enough of yourself to be on the Academy, so maybe you should go plea your case. I think you'll fit right in. :-)