Hugh Jackman gets nominated for Kate & Leopold!? (1 Viewer)

[Micheal]

I have not yet seen Kate & Leopold so I am asking for the opinion of those who have seen it. Does Hugh Jackman actually deserve a Golden Globe nomination or have they really gone and lost their minds entirely!? I mean I like H.J. but are they serious?
Maybe he's fantastic and I'll have to run out and see this movie as opposed to seeing LOTR's for the fourth time...

 

[Patrick Sun]

For the character Hugh played, he was pretty good in the film.

 

[Micheal]

For the character Hugh played, he was pretty good in the film.

Hmmm... maybe I'll have to let my wife drag me to see this movie after all....

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's a much more difficult role than first appears. He has to be the romantic lead and play the straight man to everyone and create a character who can believably adapt to being yanked 100 years out of time. I thought he did a great job, but my wife (who is presumably part of the target audience) was underwhelmed by the film as a whole.
M.

 

[Craig S]

We saw Kate & Leopold last night and enjoyed it thoroughly - it's an entertaining piece of fluff, and the entire cast did great jobs. Michael's comments about Jackman's role are right on, especially the point about his playing "a character who can believably adapt to being yanked 100 years out of time". I like the fact that they established him as an intelligent man, and his behavior after arriving in the present was consistent with that. Jackman handled all of this very nicely, and created a character of honor & grace - something rarely seen these days.
Assuming the nomination was for "Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy" (I think that's the GG category), it's entirely warranted.

 

[LarryDavenport]

It's only the Golden Globes. It is about as meaningful as a Blockbuster Video Award. Since the voters are the foreign press, who cares?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Since the voters are the foreign press, who cares?

Which part earns your derision, the fact that they're "foreign" or that they're "press"? If the latter, well, they're at least as qualified as all of the film critics' associations that hand out awards at this time of year. If it's the former, then you need to wake up and smell the global economy. Non-U.S. ticket sales for a major release often equal (and sometimes exceed) domestic box office.
And whether you like it or not, in recent years, the GG have become more closely watched as harbingers of the Oscar race. So unless you're going to dis all awards (which I'm sure some other thread-farter will do any minute), the GGs aren't so easily dismissed.
Besides, they still have the most consistently entertaining awards show of anyone.
M.

 

[Terrell]

I was surprised at this as well. I haven't seen the film, but I saw the trailers and was surprised he got a nomination. Not because he didn't deserve it, but because I didn't see it coming.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Doesn't Jim Carrey have 2 GG's? I rest my case.
Actually the problem with the GG's lining up with the Oscars is that their categories are too open, too many nominees to truly call them a harbinger of the Oscars.

 

[Paul Chi]

I think Hugh Jackman totally deserved the nomination. He did a splendid job. And I just want to say the Golden Globes are totally more than the Blockbuster Awards.

 

[Jacob_St]

I don't take any of these awards shows seriously. I doubt any of them are very sincere. It's just another way to plug a movie.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I don't take any of these awards shows seriously.

Bingo!

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I thought Jackman was pretty good in the film, and I found the film to be a nice, pleasant romantic comedy.
(By some weird quirk, the advance screening I saw was different than what ended up being released. They cut an early scene in which Kate is seen at a test screening for a film. Ironically, a test audience must have killed this scene because it was subsequently cut. Also cut from the version some critics saw: Liev Schreiber's character used to be Leopold's great-great-grandson (or however many greats), meaning Kate was his great-great-grandmother. And remember that he and Kate dated.
A small but important cut was:a shot of Kate at Leopold's party at the beginning of the film.

And just for Michael , from what I've read in years past, the Golden Globes' processes have been suspect. While they have recently increased in respectability, I would counter that their harbinger of the Oscars status can also be attributed to the fact that they nominate twice as many films/actors/actresses, which increases their odds.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Yeah, I know about the GG's shady past. I tried to be careful with my phrasing, but no one seems to be getting it:

Quote:

Meaning that some people (including critics, journalists and studio personnel) are now paying more attention to the GG results, using them to assess their Oscar prospects and guide their Oscar campaigns, etc. I'm not endorsing that use as correct, and it obviously has limits. But it's hard to ignore the fact that Globes are no longer treated as a joke in Hollywood. Just watch all the Hollywood journalists immediately after the GG ceremonies. Most of them are busily handicapping the Oscars in light of the Globes. In an industry driven by heat, buzz and chatter, that's not something to be ignored.
As for Patrick's crack about Jim Carrey, I agree that the case should rest. IMO, Jim Carrey is a fine actor who thoroughly deserves to win awards.
And the GG ceremony is still the most fun to watch!
M.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I understand what you're getting at Michael. I'll be interested to see how this new AFI ceremony impacts the Globes.
Hey, the awards season can be fun. I find it discouraging, though, when that becomes paramount, and I won't begin to talk about the sometimes limited criteria necessary for a film to be considered award-worthy.
These awards shows are catch-22s. Sometimes they draw attention to deserving films that otherwise might have flown under the public's radar, but the lack of the awards shows' seals of approval can mean quick death. Then there's also evaluating films' worths based on their award hauls. (The flighty entertainment media is mostly to blame for this sort of thing, but don't think critics don't get caught up in it occassionally too.)
Since I slighted the Globes earlier, here's one thing they've done right if my memory is correct: they recognized Renee Zellweger's wonderful Nurse Betty performance, which the Academy ignored. Then again, they do have twice as many nominees.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Zellweger's award for Nurse Betty is a good example of why it's worth having separate categories for comedy and drama. Without that division, comedy usually gets slighted, and it's every bit as difficult (if not more so) to do well.

Which brings us back to Hugh Jackman in Kate and Leopold. I'm glad you like it too, Mark. Maybe now you can forgive me for panning Waking Life (I know that Seth never will).

M.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Michael, while I expect you to have better taste (re: Waking Life), I'm fully aware that the film is polarizing. Then again, four of the top five films on my best of 2001 list are probably like that (and that's not considering Amelie a love-it-or-hate-it film).
As to the film at hand, can we agree that it might be a good idea for Meg Ryan to stop playing this kind of role for a long time. I thought at times she appeared to be going through the motions and could just be generally unpleasant. Probably the biggest irritant to me is that her "goofy" moments seemed forced. I think she's tired of doing these roles but doesn't get offered much else.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Agreed about Meg Ryan. This movie is carried by its male performers (Jackman, Liev Schreiber and Breckin Meyer).

I think she's tired of doing these roles but doesn't get offered much else.

After Proof of Life, I'll bet studios are afraid to put her in "serious" roles. I'm not saying she was bad, but the movie wasn't very good -- and it tanked.

M.