No shocker. He deserved it, glad he won. It is kind of sad seeing everyone in the crowd and then his parents and sister with the speech, it's a damn shame that he can't be there to get the award himself.
The other nominees never had a shot. He won this award within the first five minutes of his Joker being on screen. Its a shame the Academy didn't at least give a nomination for Nolan's direction and for best picture.
Kind of a joke putting RD. JR in there for Tropic Thunder. Heath should have been up for Best Actor because he carried that film.
I still maintain the best actor award should be renamed 'the Ledger'. He is to acting what Marino is to playing QB.
I've never seen Slumdog Millionaire but when a movie wins so many awards it is hard for me not to think the Academy gets so caught up in its hype they give that movie the award. JMO I think this happens often.
Actually he was good in his early days too. It was somewhere in the middle he got lost. But yeah, not really worthy or renaming the oscar for him.
What the hell was the BS with former Oscar winners standing around TALKING about roles instead of actually showing clips of their performances? The WORST idea I've ever seen or heard about. I don't give a rats *** what some writer thinks about the performance, I want to see a clip of what the actor/actress did. I just can't get over this and how stupid it was.
Yep, he was fantastic and should have recieved an Oscar nom in 2000 for his 3rd film, Monsters Ball. It was a small but powerful role. Then next was his breakout "A Knights Tale", then the ill-fated but good movie, the remake of "The Four Feathers". That movie had a great cast, but opened less than 2 weeks after 9/11 and had a sympathetic Muslim character. Just plain bad-luck and bad timing. It was then that Heath lost his way for a couple of years.....The Robe, then Ned Kelly......both obscure roles and movies that just weren't very good. In "The Robe" Heath was miscast as a Roman Catholic priest. It was directed by the same man that made A Knights Tale, and he recast almost the same cast as that movie, but AKT was a comedy, and The Robe was a serious drama. It didn't work. Then Heath started finding his way with, his small but wonderful role in The Lords of Dogtown and The Brothers Grimm, and then came his breathtaking performance in Brokeback Mountain. If you want to see an nice but sad movie about drug addiction and what it can do to you, see Candy, Heath's movie he made right after Brokeback. He plays a young man in Australia that marries young, and becomes so addicted to drugs he forces his wife to turn to prostitution to feed their drug habits. Very dark and realistic look at that tragic problem. Its such a loss as he was a tremendous talent.
I agree, yes its nice to see former winners, but they should have showed clips. Very dumb idea, and one I hope is not used again next year.
The Oscars bore the heck out of me... They are a sham. Rourke got robbed. I stopped caring about the Oscars when Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan... Just a gigantic narcissistic love-fest, IMHO...
Private Ryan and Brokeback Mountain just two examples of Oscars stupidity. How about that Singing in the Rain, widely considered as the greatest muscial in history, was not nominated for best picture in 1952 yet The Greatest Show on Earth (a really bad movie) won best picture.
Was it just me or did Sophia Loren look like she was taken over by an alien life form that is overly tanned? OUCH
Bull**** as always. "The Dark Knight" AND "Iron Man" got ROBBED on "Best Visual Effects". Someone please tell me, what were the AMAZING visual effects on "Benjamin Button"? And how on earth does DK win for "Best Sound Editing", but not "Best Sound Mixing". Hello? As usual, Hollydouche gets one or two "too cool for the room" movies and decides to heap way too much praise on them.
I dont think the Best actor award should, but i would not object to the Supporting Actor award, since that is an award he won
I have to disagree w/ people saying Mickey got robbed. I thought he was good in The Wrestler but Sean Penn is simply a better actor, and he was really good in Milk. I enjoyed Milk more overall, and enjoyed Sean Penn in it quite a bit. I was pulling for him to win, so I was glad the Academy didnt get caught up in the idea of Mickey's comeback. And I was glad to see Slum dog clean up and Ledger win. Supporting Actor was a loaded category this year, plenty of deserving performances but no way you cant give it to Ledger.
Savin private Ryan was not as good as the other war movie that year, thin red line was the movie of the year. The thing is since it's a matter of taste we will always complain but I find them fun and like watching them.... And honestly In a world that gave us Brando, Olivier, deniro, jimmy Stewart Anthony Hopkins... You can't argue the award should b named after ledger Posted via Mobile Device
I have to agree here. Yes Ledger was a very talented actor who probably was just hitting his peak with Brokeback and The Dark Knight but he's in no way in the same class overall as the guys you mentioned above.
The only Australian movie he was in that is worth seeing is Two Hands, a dark comedy about an innocent being swept up in organized crime.
Two Hands is good but Candy was pretty good too. I think just about everyone agrees that Ned Kelly was awful.
Am I the only one that found "The Thin Red Line" about as exciting as watching water freeze? I LOVE war movies and it bored me to tears.
I agree wholeheartedly. I know Q is gonna blast me for this I found the movie too cerebral. It went to far into the "inner struggles" of the characters. My thing is war is physical and mental, and because of that it is its own morality play if you just depict it the way it is. That's why I found SPR far superior, to movies like Thin Red Line and others like Platoon or Full Metal Jacket. Sometimes, I think, directors use war as a back drop to tell a different story, so that the moral quandaries of war hit home to the viewer. For me, the straight up depiction of war, where those quandaries are just played out in real time based on the given situation, has a far greater impact.
I couldnt stand the movie. I might appreciate it more if I saw it today, but at the time I wanted to walk out of the theater.
I dont tend to blast people for not liking movies. I tend to be utterly impressed they didn't like it, especially if I found the movie to be brilliant (as is the case with this or any Terrance Malick movie). But living with my brother (a Steven Seagal/JCVD/Jet Li/JAckie Chan fan) has taught me that a lot of people look for an entirely different thing than I look for when watching a movie. I think Saving Private Ryan is brutally flawed. It's opening sequence is amazing, but this is a 2 hour long movie in which the only part that is really worth last 30 minutes. The rest of it is incredibly disconnected it makes no sense that they are looking for this man, its characters are just stereotypes, and it ends up going with an easy patriotism message at the end. So yeah if it where 30 minutes long, this was the best thing of that year, but it wasn't. Meanwhile to be honest Shakespeare in Love is quite underrated of a movie. I don't know if it was the best movie of the year (again, for me it was Thin Red Line) but it was brilliantly writen, better acted, and was a very complete movie that portrayed an era with a lot of strength and power. That is the thing both Shakespeare and Thin Red Line are more complete movies. None of them have a moment quite as good as the beginning of Saving Private Ryan, but at the same time none of them was as full of holes in narrative as private Ryan. If you want to complain about a best Oscar beating a movie it had no sense beating go with "Dances with Wolves" beating out "Goodfellas"
FTR, I was just kidding by saying you were gonna be mad at me. I wasn't arguing what deserved the Oscar that year. I was happy that SIL won, in fact, its one of my favorite movies of all time. I've seen 2 things from Stoppard, SIL and Rosencrantz(sp?) & Guilderstern(sp?) Are Dead, and I'm amazed at how he weaves Shakes' material into completely original and entertaining stories. As far as SPR, I didn't find the characters stereotypical at all. There wasn't the black guy, the Jewish guy, the angry guy, the funny guy, the redneck guy, etc. that plagues other war movies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they were deep completely realized characters, but I wouldn't call them stereotypes. It also makes perfect sense they are looking for Ryan, because it actually did happen. Of course Hollywood took its fair share of license, but the idea, which you're saying is pointless, did in fact happen. I didn't think the end was as patriotic as it was about a man carrying the burden of owing a debt to a handful of men who gave their lives specifically for him.
