|
|
Post by janntosh on Nov 29, 2020 15:28:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Nov 29, 2020 17:13:01 GMT
Or it winning Best Picture that year.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 29, 2020 20:17:21 GMT
 I only saw Blanchett among the other nominees, but she was better as well. Weinstein at the height of his powers. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 29, 2020 20:43:39 GMT
It made sense to the people who likely bribed the academy.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Nov 29, 2020 22:06:01 GMT
Gywneth was delightful and beautiful playing an aristocratic woman who plays a working class man who is playing a young woman. Her range in this movie was incredible. (She looks great naked, too, but that has nothing to do with why I like her as an actress. No, really). She is vulnerable and strong. Perhaps you are reviewing her wimpy acceptance speech which was pretty dreadful, I admit.
As for “Shakespeare In Love” itself, Tom Stoppard’s script is one of the wisest and wittiest of the decade, the cast is uniformly fine, and the art direction the best of the year. Overall, the Best Picture of 1998. The Academy got at least BP and Actress right this year.
In 1998, Gwyneth Paltrow received these awards and nominations for “Shakespeare In Love” leading up to the Oscars.
Won Best Actress: Golden Globe (comedy), Screen Actors Guild (these first two are huge), Empire (leading UK film magazine), Florida Film Critics, Kansas City Critics’ Circle, Las Vegas Film Critics.
Nominated: BAFTA, Blockbuster (won for “A Perfect Murder” a few years later), Chicago, and Online Critics.
Cate Blanchette
Won Best Actress: Empire Magazine (“Elizabeth” and “Shakespeare” were considered different years), Golden Globe (drama), BAFTA, Broadcast Film Critics, Online Film Critics, Satellite Critics, Toronto Film Critics, Southeastern Film Critics, Chicago Film Critics.
Nominated: Screen Actors Guild.
So, you can see they were both pretty much critically match going into the Oscars. That's where Gwyneth's win came from.
Did Weinstein bribe ALL of those people, even the ones abroad?
“Saving Private Ryan” advocates and Spielberg fan-boys are all in a snit because their favorite movie didn’t win. While the battle scenes that bookend the movie are masterful they have to ignore a very major flaw - the whole middle section between the battles is talkie and War Movie Cliché City.
One last observation: if you preferred another movie or actor as the winner, that’s fine. BUT, that doesn’t make the actual winner a bad movie or bad actor or unworthy winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 29, 2020 22:30:11 GMT
Shots fired.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 29, 2020 23:47:49 GMT
Miramax marketed the movie better and Paltrow is a better schmoozer.
Plus she was perfectly fine in the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on Nov 30, 2020 0:38:36 GMT
It’s a good film - I have always held that it’s a better choice than Saving Private Ryan, although neither is really Oscar-worthy - and Paltrow is charming in it. Fernanda Montenegro was streets ahead of the competition but was never going to win, so I’m fine with Paltrow - several more recent winners are much worse.
Blanchett was good in Elizabeth but no better than any number of other actresses could have been. She won her eventual Best Actress trophy for a far better performance.
|
|
