This should have got noms for best picture, director, and actor for Clint. But of course it didn't due to the views of Hollywood. And they wonder why trump has so much support. People of all types are sick of the pc police
shareI agree with you on that one.
shareI wish Eastwood had at least gotten a Best Actor nod.
shareLow quality story line, acting, and directing kept it from the Oscar nominations.
shareThe film released too late in the game. 2008 was a weak year for the Oscar nominations- I mean you had crap like Frost/Nixon and The Reader getting a lot of undeserved attention, when Clint easily should have gotten a Best Actor citation. The academy loves him though- this was just a matter of bad timing. Remember- they even nominated Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) when everyone thought Dreamgirls was getting that final best picture slot. I was one of the few who predicted otherwise. Never underestimate the Clint (remember American Sniper last year). It's just that Gran Torino was a late bloomer.
shareKind of like this flower that takes 7 - 10 years to bloom?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphophallus_titanum
(Sorry; I couldn't help myself.)
Except The Reader was amazing.
If you love Jesus Lizard and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!
To each their own, but IMO The Reader is like so many other "Oscar Winning Movies" - 85% of people never heard of it and 90% of people didn't see it. And, a couple of years after it comes out, 99% of people forget about it.
So popularity = quality? In that case Avatar should have taken 30 Oscar awards home.
If you love Jesus Lizard and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!
I didn't say that. What I am saying is that the majority of films the academy loves are boring, pretentious movies which don't appeal to most people and quickly fade from people's memory.
Other movies, such as this, are quite good, have a great message, and are still popular years after their release - yet the self-important members of the academy won't acknowledge them. They think they have to support the boring, pretentious movies because it is their "duty" to do so.
I just saw GT and it was a good movie, well acted and highly entertaining. Yet, from the get go I kept thinking how cheaply it was written. I'm not surprised it failed to generate much awards awareness.
shareI remember all of the buzz about the movie. While I didn't hear any spoilers about the ending, I heard how good of a movie it was.
I don't think it was perfect, but Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk and The Reader - which one of those gets any air-time on any net work? Button was on TBS for a while, but I can't remember any of those movies showing up anywhere with regularity - and I never heard of The Reader until it was mentioned in reference to this movie.
Lol shut the f up
shareI agree with op
shareThat may have played a part in it, but really, it wasn't up to the par of the movies for which Clint has won. It received some critics awards and such. The poor acting of the supporting cast and the contrived and hokey nature of some of the plot elements are primarily what kept it from getting an Oscar nomination.
share