Siskel & Ebert - Oscar Nomination Surprises (1998)

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
  • Gene and Roger discuss the surprising inclusions and omissions among the 70th Annual Academy Award nominations.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 19

  • @masteryogurt3788
    @masteryogurt3788 Рік тому +8

    I love how they talk about Leo winning in a few years as a consolation prize but he would never actually win until both had died.

  • @paulpfannenstiel6409
    @paulpfannenstiel6409 2 роки тому +3

    Loved the Sweet Hereafter.

  • @joaoruyfaustino9392
    @joaoruyfaustino9392 3 роки тому +15

    Are the thumbnails getting creepier?

    • @footofjuniper8212
      @footofjuniper8212 2 роки тому

      No joke! It used to be just black dots on Siskel's eyes and mouth. In this one, he looks like he has lizard eyes.

  • @AndyBluebear-fi9om
    @AndyBluebear-fi9om 2 місяці тому +2

    Unpopular opinion, but Leo wasn't robbed that year.

    • @kd17Burger
      @kd17Burger Місяць тому

      I wouldn't call it unpopular, it wasn't an Oscar Worthy performance

  • @sleong
    @sleong 3 роки тому +6

    they were so right about DeCaprio in Titanic. He carried that movie into a sensation

  • @Ryan07_20
    @Ryan07_20 10 місяців тому +3

    While I agree that DiCaprio should have been nominated, Matt definitely deserved his recognition. His final argument scene with Minnie was incredible.

  • @petermiesel31
    @petermiesel31 Рік тому +1

    You can see Siskel already looked ill at that point

    • @flaccidusminimus2170
      @flaccidusminimus2170  Рік тому +2

      Maybe. He was diagnosed in May 1998, three months after this episode. He had been symptomatic for most of the year: severe debilitating headaches, irritability, confusion, slower speech, diminished energy. I wouldn't say he appears ill here, but he's certainly slower.

  • @TheLolapuff
    @TheLolapuff 2 роки тому

    Spike Lee’s “Four Little Girls” should’ve won the Academy Award. His best film imo. So powerful& beautifully done. First class all the way.

    • @flaccidusminimus2170
      @flaccidusminimus2170  2 роки тому

      Agreed. That one and "When The Levees Broke" are among my favorite documentaries. It seems to me like hardly anyone who claims to love Spike Lee ever mentions those.

  • @flaccidusminimus2170
    @flaccidusminimus2170  3 роки тому +1

    DiCaprio may have been responsible for much of "Titanic's repeat *business* as a sex symbol, but he isn't the most important element in its artistic success as a movie. The Academy's nomination of Winslet rather than DiCaprio looks more than appropriate with 20+ years of hindsight, and I thought it was correct at the time as well. Winslet's performance is what makes the whole thing gel, and she has a far more complex role as the film's emotional anchor and surrogate for the audience. It's her awakening, and the gradual revelation of how she learns to trust, love, and change that moves people (including me) so profoundly. DiCaprio is certainly dreamy, and exudes great pluck and tenacity, but there were easily five better male lead performances that year. Probably more than 20.
    While everyone was fussing over the DiCaprio omission that year, I kept wondering how they overlooked Ian Holm, Al Pacino, or Johnny Depp.

    • @nikosvault
      @nikosvault 2 роки тому

      Siskel had teenage daughters...so.

  • @dsprenger13
    @dsprenger13 2 роки тому

    the special effects and the xtras were the stars of Titanic....leonardo and kate were both young and their performances were pretty green and just ok ...esp given the sappy, soap-opera drama plot line and dialogue they had to act and speak....let's get real......both actors even say so today.....kate said she was actually embarrassed by her performance in several scenes .....academy was right in this case and neither was deserving of a nomination.

  • @ericryanyawl9401
    @ericryanyawl9401 2 роки тому +1

    Never understood the Titanic love.