Welcome, guest!
Create an account for a personalized experience,
or log on if you have one.
|
|
|
|
Welcome, guest! | |
Wall Archive | ||||
|
«Michael (foof) Maki» hmmm... (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:36pm) «nate...» adaptation is related to being john mal? (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:36pm) «John J. Ryan» He was great in that film. You sympathized with him SO much. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:36pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» I'm still bitter at that BITCH Julia Roberts taking Ellen Barkin's oscar (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:36pm) «jaye» he's great in everything. that, the hours, magnolia, the anniversary party. it's about time he gets some recognition (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:36pm) «nate...» no way! walken has to win! he's my own personal god (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:36pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» Nate: Yeah. Both directed by Spike Jonze (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:37pm) «jaye» and both written by charlie kaufmann (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:37pm) «nate...» michael: ahh.. interesting.. I liked the latter. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:37pm) «ChrisChin is Getting Old» and written by Charlie Kaufman (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:37pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» Erm. Ellen Burstyn, I mean. Brain-fart. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:37pm) «nate...» wait, so they were written by charlie kaufman AND written by charlie kaufman??? ;) (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:38pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» oh, yeah. Forgot about the Kaufman bit. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:38pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» I, personally, think Punch Drunk Love should win best picture... But no one asked me. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:39pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» Queen Latifah *must* win. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:39pm) «nate...» nate wants thursday. pulls up imdb AGAIN. :D (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:39pm) «ChrisChin is Getting Old» eep..no..Catherine Zeta-Jones. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:39pm) «jaye» punch drunk love was great. and queen latifah? no way. julianne there, too :) (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:39pm) «ChrisChin is Getting Old» she was such a hottie in that movie. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:39pm) «nate...» huh... that's sounds pretty artsy fartsy too. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:40pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» Michael (foof) Maki vainly selects "Spirited Away" for best Animated feature. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:40pm) «lawrence» and hotness is always a great reason for someone to win an academy award. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:40pm) «jaye» catherine owned that role. she was fantastic. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:40pm) «lawrence» that's a better reason, then. :) (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:41pm) «nate...» lawrence: agreed. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:41pm) «jaye» it's unfortunate that the structure reduced velma - she was the lead on broadway, not roxie, iirc (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:41pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» Mmmm... Y Tu Mama Tambien. Lord. Seems like that came out AGES ago. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:41pm) «ChrisChin is Getting Old» despite the hotness, she was great in that role. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:41pm) «ChrisChin is Getting Old» and Julianne moore, was just eh. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:41pm) «jaye» yeah, michael, i keep thinking that was last year. it's been ages since i saw it in the theater - and, hell, ages since i -bought- it (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:41pm) «ChrisChin is Getting Old» I hear her Far From Heaven performance was amazing though. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:42pm) «nate...» why can't movies like back to the future or UHF ever be in these silly contests?! (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:42pm) «jaye» julianne is -never- "just eh" :) (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:42pm) «lawrence» nate - hah. that would be great. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:42pm) «nate...» now THOSE were enjoyable flicks. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:42pm) «lawrence» actually, they should have "comedy oscars," I think. it seems most really funny movies never get nominated, 'cause they're not "serious films" (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:42pm) «J» thanx jaci (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:42pm) «nate...» "And the best actor award goes to..... Weird Al !" (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:43pm) «lawrence» heh (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:43pm) «lawrence» nate - no way, Michael Richards. :) (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:43pm) «nate...» actually, he'd be best supporting actor. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:43pm) «nate...» :) (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:43pm) «lawrence» (oh, I guess he'd be best supporting.) (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:43pm) «lawrence» yeah (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:43pm) «nate...» but yeah, these movies in the oscars are always so serious... and "artistic" and crap. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:44pm) «lawrence» actually, not just comedy oscars - but just... entertainment oscars. it's not just comedies that they avoid. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:44pm) «lawrence» just, all the really entertaining movies of the year. and there could be overlap, too. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:44pm) «John J. Ryan» Yeah, Gigantic should have been nominated for best documentary. :) (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:44pm) «J» uh Gigantic was ok but (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:44pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» I think Bowling for Columbine was the most suprising movie I saw last year. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:44pm) «J» I have seen better (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:44pm) «nate...» never saw it. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:45pm) «J» I still need to see Bowling (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:45pm) «John J. Ryan» I haven't seen it yet, but from what everyone said, I voted for Columbine. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:45pm) «lawrence» I need to see that. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:45pm) «nate...» (either of them) (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:45pm) «jaye» i'm still amused that columbine won the writer's guild award for best script (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:45pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» Nate: Uhh...some of us *like* artsy-fartsy movies. I mean, art is *supposed* to challenge. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:45pm) «J» I watched a docu about a guy who paid someone to shoot him (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:45pm) «lawrence» best script?! (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:46pm) «J» it was on TV yesturday (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:46pm) «nate...» michael: sure... but why have the whole award show devoted to just one genre? (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:46pm) «jaye» michael - agreed. i loved talk to her, the pianist, y tu mama tambien, etc (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:46pm) «lawrence» Michael - I agree, but artistic value shouldn't be the only criterion by which movies are judged. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:46pm) «John J. Ryan» That is funny. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:46pm) «jaye» eh. artistic value isn't judged at the oscars anyway. it's about money and politics (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:46pm) «J» my god its 3 already (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:47pm) «J» I better have a shower (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:47pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» Lawrence: If not artistic value, then what? (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:47pm) «nate...» I mean, don't get me wrong, I like some of the chick flicks too.... but, why JUST those? (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:47pm) «J» later guys (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:47pm) «John J. Ryan» There should be two picks for these contests. Who you think should win and who WILL win. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:47pm) «nate...» adios julie (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:47pm) «lawrence» well, it depends on the category. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:47pm) «lawrence» I mean, for "art direction," and "set design," sure, artistic value. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:47pm) «lawrence» but best actor? no reason that needs to be a serious role. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:48pm) «lawrence» if the part is played well... (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:48pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» Okay. First of all, artistic != chick flick (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:48pm) «jaye» "chick flicks"? wtf? (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:48pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» Boys on the Side is a chick flick. It is not, however, terribly artistic. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:48pm) «jaye» also wga and bowling for columbine (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:49pm) «John J. Ryan» Titanic is 50% chick flick. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:49pm) «jaye» titanic was about money (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:49pm) «lawrence» no it's not, John. at least, not by the definition of "chick flick" I've heard. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:49pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» But the thing is that drama is always going to be considered "better" than comedy. Although I think Comedy is way harder to do well. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:49pm) «John J. Ryan» The money part was the big-budget disaster movie part. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:49pm) «John J. Ryan» What's the definition of a chick flick? (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:50pm) «lawrence» Michael - but why should that continue to be true? why do people value drama over comedy? (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:50pm) «jaye» to me a chick flick is something like "how to lose a guy in ten days" (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:50pm) «lawrence» John - usually really "emotionally intense" movies. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:51pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» I mean, Nate, what films would *you* like to see nominated for academy awards? (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:51pm) «lawrence» that's the way I've always heard it. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:51pm) «jaye» but if you want to paint "any movie that actually forces you to think" with the chick flick brush, then i guess i'm proud to be a chick :P (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:51pm) «lawrence» because the stereotype, of course, is that women are supposed to be sensitive and guys are supposed to be cold and unemotional. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:51pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» Yeah, that's what I think of when I think "chick flick" Pretty boys and gorgeous women who look frumpy for the first half of the movie. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:51pm) «hkath» oh dear. The nominees for best make-up are sad sad sad (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:52pm) «Michael (foof) Maki» That's stupid, Lawrence. I've never heard that definiton before right now. (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:52pm) «nate...» That came out int he last year? (Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:52pm) « Previous 100 entries | Next 100 entries »
©1999-2025 ·
Acceptable Use
Website for Creative Commons Music?
|