Comments on: Danny Boyle is currently unemployed

By: Ken J

Ken J — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 04:55:07 +0000

Wait, just realized something, how can you question why I don't feel anything for the characters in 21 grams??? Hello, an ex convict, actually, I like to call them released convicts… anyway, who runs over a family and doesn't have the decency to stop and take responsibility for it, a drug addict, and a guy that goes and sleeps with the woman who was the wife of the guy that game him his heart. Oooohhhhhhh, they sound like a group of people I would love to have as buddies!!

I'm sorry, I'm not a bleeding heart. I think more criminals should be executed, that's how I would solve overcrowding, not releasing them. I wish all drugs can be laced with deadly poisons, that would solve our drug problem, and whatever about Penn's character, I guess he's just some sick guy, did nothing wrong prior to the movie, but I still can't relate to him.

By: Ken J

Ken J — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 04:39:04 +0000

And I still find it amusing how you think it's so far-fetched that the academy votes in directions that help get their political message out despite the fact that it has been going on for decades, especially the last decade. Downright amusing. Next I'm sure you're going to tell me that The Dixie Chicks won 5 grammy's for their musical ability right? LMAO :-D Give me a break.

I appreciate your opinion, you like Sean Penn, that's wonderful. I think the "Academy" are full of snobs that like the smell of their own s***. My opinion, your opinion. I'm cool with that. :-)

By: Ken J

Ken J — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 04:38:44 +0000

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. :-)

By: whysoserious

whysoserious — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:27:48 +0000

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.

By: Ken J

Ken J — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:49:57 +0000

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.

By: Ken J

Ken J — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:49:11 +0000

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.

By: Ken J

Ken J — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:48:16 +0000

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…

By: Ken J

Ken J — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:47:02 +0000

Um, well, like I just said: "Like everything else in the media, it's biased, one way or the other." So regardless of which way they lean, everyone leans. So yes, they are human, I'm glad you recognize that i've acknowledged that already.

And no, I didn't watch the Independent Spirit Awards. i'm surprised you even asked me that. Didn't I just come here panning award shows and how I don't need to see what a bunch of movie snobs have to say blah blah blah…

Anyway, I think I misstated that anyhow, saying he's not as outspoken is a statement I can't make since I don't know how Rourke is in award shows, what my point was that he's not as outspoken in the topic that the academy was aiming for, and that was to make their stance on preposition 8 known. Rourke has no reason to say anything about that, but Penn was in a movie about a homosexual, and being as outspoken as he is, it's pretty obvious how that speech was going to go down… It doesn't take a genius to figure it out…

By: whysoserious

whysoserious — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:25:38 +0000

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.

By: Ken J

Ken J — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 22:14:42 +0000

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.