O2
Getting a look at the rest of the nominations, a few more comments…
The cynical view that dead jews are tough to beat in The Academy was sustained by The Reader, a movie with limited ad budget, a conflicted lead actress, and very mixed reviews pushing right past the mega-movie and the hard push for Doubt.
Scott Rudin will have to hang tightly onto his Oscar for last year after getting smacked in the nose on both Doubt and the less surprising miss, Revolutionary Road. Harvey Weinstein must be guffawing and guffawing loud.
As was always kind of obvious, Ben Button lead the nominations with a one-off-the-record 13. And it is realistically in the race for eight – Art direction, Cinematography, Costume design, Makeup, Original score, Sound mixing, and Visual effects. Expect it to take 3 or 4 of these.
Slumdog Millionaire’s BP cause was pushed forward a little bit more by the Reader ascension.
The complete list of “real” surprises:
The Reader for BP
Daldry for Director/Reader
Winslet in lead for Reader (only because of category games)
Downey, Jr for Tropic Thunder
Melissa Leo for Actress
Angelina Jolie for Actress
In Bruges for O screenplay
Frozen River for O screenplay
2 song noms for Slumdog… of just 3 nods… and none for HSM or for Springsteen’s song for The Wrestler
(ADD, 7:16a – The even more remarkable thing about The Reader, the one giant shock to the Oscar system this year, is that it got 5 nominations and all but 1 was a Top 8 nod, Picture, Actress, Director, Adapted Screenplay. (The 5th was cinematography… top of the next tier of nods.)
(Correction, 7:37a – Mr. Weinstein is back in NYC as of last night.)
I’m sorry, but I’ve thought for months that Downey for Supporting Actor was one of the more expected nominations, not one of the surprises.
Copied from other blog:
You know, the comments about The Dark Knight not getting the nod just kind of write themself – I thought it deserved it, too, but Slumdog is my personal favorite and though it would have been nice for some acting nods, that film has not been hurt at all.
Two thoughts about why this happened:
– NEVER underestimate Harvey Weinstein again, the man can take any film to a Best Picture nod. Think about Chocolat, for Christ sakes.
– The fact that Benjamin Button has made $100 million absolved the Academy from nominating another blockbuster. I doubt it will still even crack $150 million, but they just don’t want to nominate too many successful films, never have. That said, Slumdog is looking increasingly likely to crack $100 million, so that could leave 2 blockbusters in the pack, which is the best you could hope for at this point. Milk, The Reader (I love Kate Winslet, but give me a break about that one), and Frost/Nixon will not even make $100 million combined.
The one pleasant surprise is that they didn’t cowtow to Clint Eastwood which is pretty shocking – can’t believe Clint didn’t get an acting nod, but GOOD for Richard Jenkins.
One other nice surprise is the two song nominees for Slumdog Millionair – I have been playing that soundtrack non-stop and those two nominated songs are damn catchy.
Downey being nominated in the same category as Ledger makes me nervous. He at least is the one guy who would make things right on the stage, but it’s still a weird nomination.
The Downey Jr. nomination is of course a surprise to *no on* except Poland who let his hatred of Tropic Thunder blind himself to the obvious.
Downey’s nomination also (a) is a partial award for Iron Man, and (b) stands little chance of winning because of its comedic/satiric/anti-Oscar nature.
Ricky Gervais’ “Extras” crack about Holocaust movies being a one-way ticket to the Oscars is looking more and more prescient, isn’t it?
Gotta admit I never saw “The Reader” (which I liked but didn’t love) surge coming.
No tears shed by me for the omission of “TDK” in the major categories (or Springsteen’s shut-out for that matter), but “Revolutionary Road” truly got shafted. Shannon’s completely unexpected, and totally deserving, nomination was a rare bright spot this morning.
And after my conversion experience last weekend with “Rachel Getting Married” and “Happy-Go-Lucky” (yes, screeners are a good thing), I’m mildly disappointed that Rosemarie DeWitt and Sally Hawkins didn’t receive nominations.
I guess Clint will have to content himself with the fact that “Gran Torino” is turning out to be his biggest box-office hit in decades. I’m guessing he can live with that.
Potential upsets:
“Trouble the Water” over “Man on Wire” in the doc feature category; and “Baader Meinhof Complex” besting “Walt With Bashir” for foreign language film?
So the movie every critic loved but you movieman, that got shafted is okay. While the movie a lot of critics hated that you loved getting shafted pisses you off. Ladies and Gentlemen: that’s what I call ENTERTAINMENT! HOOGAH! HOOGAH! HOOGAH!
TDK getting seven nods is nothing to sneeze at.
Milk getting eight nods is also solid. It’s got Best Original Screenplay in the bag.
Best Actress race is anyone’s guess.
Penn will still get Best Actor I’m betting.
I hope Rourke can make it a race for Best Actor.
Why only three nominees for Best Song? Given that situation, it’s my hope that the “Slumdog” songs split the vote, and Peter Gabriel wins for “WALL-E.” That said, Springsteen should be in there. To me, that’s the biggest snub of the day.
And after commenting in another post, I realize that it was only 2005 when the BP-BD nominees last lined up. But this is only the second time this decade. With Nolan being shut out of BD, I point to “Black Hawk Down.” To me, the orchestration of chaos and compelling content in “The Dark Knight” at the very least equaled that of “BHD,” and thus Nolan shoudl have been nominated.
As do I. As do I.
There is no way Ledger won’t get the Oscar.
The Dark Knight will have to be satisfied with that award as well as the technical awards that no one gives a shit about!
I am THRILLED that TDK didn’t get a Best Picture or Best Director nod. TDK doesn’t deserve that kind of recognition. Some fanboys are shitting in their pants over it… it’s hilarious.
I think Mickey Rourke will win for sure, Danny Boyle for Best Director, and maybe Kate Winslet for The Reader.
I am glad that Melissa Leo is getting noticed for “Frozen River,” since most people have never heard of the film.
Also, Angelina Jolie got a nod?!?! I am a fan of hers, but I don’t think she was that good in “The Changeling.”
I still need to see The Wrestler, but knowing how great Rourke is in even the lamest project, I can’t see how he isn’t amazing in that movie.
Agreed that Downey Jr is not the least bit of a surprise nomination. EVERYBODY I read was predicting that except David Poland.
But a weirder “surprise” sticks out more. Who, exactly, thought that High School Musical was going to land in the Best Song category? The thought of all the aged Academy members getting their head in the game is…hilarious.
just a thought: the omission of springsteen kinda makes me feel that rourke was voted in on his publicity and not on voters having seen the film…i think if they’d actually seen it, the song wouldn’t have been overlooked…i’m probably wrong but, if the theory is correct, it wouldn’t bode well for a rourke win…
“Dark Knight” has eight, not seven.
If you think the most populous movie of the 21st century is a GEEK FILM. You really need a correction from the head-up. This omission makes the Oscars irrelevant. They missed a chance at reaching the most people because old people are easily duped by Harvey Weinstein. Which is just sad.
Oh yeah: the Boss being snubbed is embarrassing.
Seriously; this is like watching a good friend make a terrible decision. The Academy decided to throw themselves under the freakin bus. They literally decided to get ran over. It’s sad, but they are finished. They had a good run. Too bad it couldn’t have lasted longer.
You keep saying populous. I don’t think that word means what you think it does.
Scoot: Actors are nominated by actors, songs are nominated by musicians, right? So isn’t it possible that voters in the Music Branch just weren’t all that wild about the song — which, presumably, was shipped out to them as a “For Your Consideration” CD — and snubbed it?
Joe: you look like fucking Santa Claus. You are lucky the people who own the rights to your look, are not suing your ass right out the apparent HOOD in which you live. Seriously… dippin stick (because you look like a brother who loves some garlic sauce!) Here you go: Pop”u*lous\, a. [L. populosus, fr. populus people: cf. F. populeux.]
1. Abounding in people; full of inhabitants; containing many inhabitants in proportion to the extent of the country.
Heaven, yet populous, retains Number sufficient to possess her realms. –Milton.
2. Popular; famous. [Obs.] –J. Webster.
There you go. Ho ho ho asshole! I’VE GOTS THE INTERNETS!
IO: I stand corrected. I can honestly say I’d never heard the word used that way before. True, it’s an OBSCURE definition, but a valid definition nonetheless. Can’t argue with Mr. Webster. My apologies.
Excuse me, while I get some hot-sauce dipping for my filet of crow.
Joe, big ups on the Princess Bride reference. Very nice.
Joe: Ho Ho Ho :D!
Do you really want me to start getting pissy, IOU, and make the argument that Leo DiCaprio was already a better actor when he did “Gilbert Grape” than Ledger was when he o.d. in bed with that Olsen Twin?
I mean, all this “Dark Knight” blather is really about the fetishization of a corpse, right?
And EW’s new Ledger cover–and nauseatingly effusive centerfold piece on Heath Christ–made me want to puke.
leydon — like i said, ‘just a thought’ (and apparently not a very good one)…it must be the sleep deprivation that comes from having to be at the academy at four in the morning…..
that said, still sorry the song was dissed…
Movie: Leo is no John Hamm. It’s that simply movieman. He’s not. He played a role, that John Hamm plays with more heart and soul. It’s that simple.
The other part of the response is just silly. You think the words of a 50s something man can phase me? Really? You’re antiquated man. You’re ideas of what’s good, you’re ideas of what’s bad, and you’re ideas of what’s relevant are passe. So you continue to make your readers happy. I do hope that they can get more out of you than I ever have, but they must. You somehow have a critics job in a crumbling economy. Good for you.
Now run along there fella. Enjoy the second phase of your life, watch an older flick, and share interesting anecdotes about the Seventies with people.
Since it seems standard for at least one of the acting winners to be based on a real-life person, who is it going to be this year?
Josh Brolin? (no)
Angelina Jolie? (no)
Frank Langella? (probably not)
Sean Penn? (probably)
Hawkins’ snub shows once again how utterly meaningless the Golden Globes are. (Though she also swept the critics, which is harder to dismiss.)
Here’s a question for you statistician types: has any movie prior to DOUBT received four acting nominations yet was snubbed for Picture and Director?
movieman,
It’s possible to debate the merits or demerits of DiCaprio and Ledger (both of whom I’m a fan of, FWIW) without resorting to a nasty personal attack capable of greatly offending not only those of us who have been moved by Ledger’s artistry, but also those who knew and loved him. (I can’t count myself in the latter group, having only met him once in the impersonal context of a junket, but I can’t say for certain that there isn’t anyone who was close to him reading this blog, and neither can you.)
Don’t you claim to write about film professionally? I ask because what you wrote above would be mercilessly picked apart by any astute editor, even beyond the general concern over whether such a blatant lack of compassion over a dead artist would invite a barrage of hate mail that would damage a theoretical publication’s reputation. Most obviously, the statement is factually incorrect; Ledger was not “in bed with that Olsen Twin” when he passed on. Olsen was merely the first contact called by Ledger’s masseuse when she found the body. And are you willing to define any “blather” over a beloved performance by a gone-too-soon screen icon as “fetishization of a corpse”? Dean in “Rebel Without a Cause”? Phoenix in “My Own Private Idaho”? I hope you wouldn’t define those two examples as such, though if you don’t, that means the definition itself is utterly bogus.
Also, if I recall, weren’t you a huge fan of “I’m Not There,” which featured Ledger in a prominent role? So how do you square that with what you just wrote?
I don’t think it’s too self-righteous for me to ask you to apologize to everyone here who may have felt hurt, if even slightly, by your insensitive, tactless comments about Ledger’s death. Please notice I’m not asking you to apologize for not liking his performance as the Joker–that’s your opinion, and you can voice those feelings all you want without fear of inflicting any real emotional bruises.
The outcome is fixed and everyone knows it …
“The Reader”: Holocaust picture pushed by a Film Snob who buys awards yet can’t do anything else worth shit.
“Doubt”: Academy Award Winner x 3 in the trailer, pushed by a studio whose corporate cousin will televise Oscar Night.
“The Dark Knight”: Die too soon, win an Oscar. It worked for Peter Finch and it will work for Heath Ledger.
“Frost/Nixon”: Name-checking + Academy Award Winner = nominations. Safe for the Oscar crowd since Tricky Dick is long dead.
“Milk”: Play a homo, win an Oscar. It worked for “Boys Don’t Cry”.
“Changeling”: Nominate Clint for a movie that tanked. Don’t nominate Clint for a box-office hit that’s making money.
“Frozen River”: I had to go to a quasi-arthouse to see it because Sony Pictures Classics don’t have a clue about product flow.
“The Visitor”: Name-checking + summer release = kudos for the Oscar crowd, flop at the box office.
“Waltz with Bashir”: Israel, Right or Wrong.
Smackdown and Monday Night RAW are legitimate compared to all the Oscar bullshit. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing the Oscar presenters get a beatdown at the Royal Rumble on Sunday night.
“Changeling: Nominate Clint for a movie that tanked.”
Clint Eastwood was not nominated for Changeling.
“Frozen River: I had to go to a quasi-arthouse to see it because Sony Pictures Classics don’t have a clue about product flow.”
This comment comes in a list of complaints about the Oscar nominations. Is this a non sequitur, or are you upset that nominations went to a movie whose marketing was not handled well?
“Waltz with Bashir”: Israel, Right or Wrong.
Israel has been nominated in Best Foreign Language Film only seven previous times since 1947, and it has never won. Is that really an outrageous or obviously biased track record?
Your list of complaints includes 9 items. Not one of the nine items includes a comment on quality. 1.5 of the 9 items contrast box office performance with awards performance, a dubious but debatable basis for argument. 7.5 of the 9 are all about the marketing.
I’m convinced you don’t actually SEE movies. You only see trailers and review those.
I actually go to movies, Sam. I think before I post, not like the AICN crowd and not like some on this blog.
Quality don’t mean shit if your films don’t get seen. “Frozen River” came out in August, when megaplexes need extra movies to occupy screens. Had Sony Classics had any brains it would have booked “Frozen River” into megaplexes. As it wasn’t I had to go to a quasi-arthouse. It didn’t help that the economy caused megaplexes where I live to stay uber-mainstream even on Labor Day.
It’s an open secret that Harvey Weinstein buys awards. He spent a lot of money to buy nominations for “The Reader”. That money would have been better spent on getting “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” into DLP format. Carmike Cinemas is a US theater chain that’s going all-DLP, yet Carmike was forced to play “Vicky Cristina” in 35mm because Harvey’s boys can’t afford DLP.
On “Changeling” I stand corrected. That it got nominations and not “Gran Torino” shows the Academy has a history of punishing anything that actually makes money.
As for “Waltz with Bashir”, I have one word for you: Gaza.
Chucky, I have to disagree with your first sentence in your 2:55 post – most of what you post is knee-jerk nonsense with only a thin, mythological basis in fact.
For example, your long-stated, murky hatred of Oscar-name-dropping – why? You have never, ever, EVER explained the basis of your thoughts. Would you PLEASE?
Also, your homophobia re: Milk is insulting and you obviously have not seen Waltz with Bashir. And why is it a bad thing that you had to see Frozen River in a non-megaplex? And Vicky Cristina on a 35mm print? Why do either of these things matter, except for how they personally inconvenienced and offended you?
Name-checking other movies tells the public “Our movie is nothing original, it’s a piece of shite”. ID’ing key people with “Academy Award Winner” and “Academy Award Nominee” screams “SNOB”. It’s not that hard to understand.
The public figures it out soon enough and stays away. Take out all the name-checking and Oscar-Whoring, you may actually get more people into theaters.
AMPAS has a history of right-wing conduct. “Waltz with Bashir” is the latest example — it’s from a nation that receives blind support from the US government. Anyone who votes for that film is giving their support to a nation that thinks Arabs are untermenschen. I’ll let jeffmcm look up the origin of that word.
As to “Milk”? If I’m a homophobe, then Pat Robertson is Catholic.
“Name-checking other movies tells the public “Our movie is nothing original, it’s a piece of shite”. ID’ing key people with “Academy Award Winner” and “Academy Award Nominee” screams “SNOB”. It’s not that hard to understand.”
No it doesn’t. Why do you think this?
“‘Waltz with Bashir’ is the latest example — it’s from a nation that receives blind support from the US government. Anyone who votes for that film is giving their support to a nation that thinks Arabs are untermenschen.”
So to be perfectly clear – you have not seen this film, and are making a knee-jerk political argument with no basis in aesthetics. Correct?
“‘Milk’: Play a homo, win an Oscar. It worked for ‘Boys Don’t Cry”.'”
Sounds homophobic to me.
You know, I don’t get this resentment towards Milk – you would think from some of the bloggers that Hollywood is pushing “gay agenda” movies on us every year, just as I’m sure the folks at Fox News are pushing.
This film took over 20 years to make and it tells a pretty important story. Seriously, how many mainstream films have gotten to this awards-level over the past 20 years featuring a leading character who’s gay? I can count them on one hand: Brokeback, Philidelphia, The Crying Game, that’s it! Add to that how many mainstream studio films getting wide release featuring gay main characters? In & Out, The Birdcage, Victor Victoria, Next Best Thing, Chasing Amy, I’ll even throw in Chuck & Larry – that’s really it, maybe ten films in total!
You see more Hollywood films EVERY YEAR that probably feature a lead character who is devoutly Christian or a member of the military – and yet having one film roughly every two years pushing the “gay agenda” is just too much for some folks????? Give me a break.
I don’t care how many homosexuals have money in this town, how many openly gay actors there are – the business is not pushing gay on any one through its product. If Milk made it, then it’s deserving.
Exhibit A – Any one holding their breath for I Love You, Philip Morris to get picked up by a major studio for a 3,000 screen release in mid-May???? Hell, it only stars Jim Carrey….not like he can open a major comedy or anything.
And the irony is that the business is really eating itself when it comes to image – remember that ridiculous lawsuit a few years back when Tom Cruise was suing a tabloid for floating the gay rumors and his publicist cried how it could his “credibility” in action movies?
Well, there was little gem called Wonder Boys that came out about nine years ago – Robert Downey Jr. and Tobey Maguire played gay characters who hooked up. Boy, I’m glad that neither of them had to a headline a major superhero franchise – that would have been disastrous, no one would have bought!
Maybe, Hollywood should exhibit a little more faith.
@Cadavra – It seems Doubt has tied My Man Godfrey (great classic film btw) from 1936 as the only movie to have 4 acting nominations and not a Best Picture nomination as well. What’s worse for MMG was that there were 10 nominees for Best Picture when it shockingly got snubbed. Must’ve been some shenanigans going on – Libeled Lady got a Best Picture nod without any other nomination, and William Powell, the star of MMG, had The Great Ziegfeld go on to win Best Picture. MMG also was nominated for writing and directing and wound up losing all 6 nominations. Doubt will likely lose all its 5 as well.
y’know, chucky…up ’til now i’ve tended to chalk up most of your posts as being some weird ocd thing…but these last few entries really slide into io territory…
‘boys don’t cry’ was about a homo?!?
the academy historically pushes away money makers?!?
quoting oscar winners = shite ?!?
just strange….
Calling someone a homo is only a step below saying faggot. So, watch it.
There’s a few more gay movies Geoff missed like Gods And Monsters, Far From Heaven, The Hours, Capote, Kiss Of The Spider Woman, but his point is still valid. Half the time the character dies at the end so it’s not like these movies are condoning a gay “lifestyle”. They’re showing the suffering of people and the stories involve conflict and drama which is what makes an acting performance memorable.
Geoff: I find Harvey Milk to be one of the more inspirational figures of the last century. The man took a stand at a bad time for gay folks in this country, and in a way it cost him his life. I find it rather hard to go see Milk because I know the ending, and much like the death of Jeff Buckley by the hands of a piece of shit inlet river. IT PISSES ME OFF. All of that being stated: the Academy are homophobes. This is why Heath and Brokeback (for BP) did not get their due back in 06. The Academy simply does not have it in them to vote for a gay film. It sucks, but gay is as bad as Batman to them. Seriously.
Jeff: I think Chuck may have been stating he’s gay. So if that’s the case. He can talk about his preference any way he wants. He also makes a point about The Reader. Harvey bought that award on older voters — possibly Jewish — and their views toward Nazis and the holocaust. Which in turn has pretty much fucked over the Oscars for years to come.
Usually he comes across as crazy, but Chuck has some points. Some real valid points. When you turn down two of the more critically acclaimed films of the year for one that’s not. Uh… we got a problem.
IOI, I would wager cash money that that is not what Chucky is saying (correct me if I’m wrong, Chucky). I think he thinks he’s a righteous, honorable libertarian/liberal. I would counter by saying he’s an obsessive-compulsive loon. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. And the only way we will ever arrive at the truth is if he, magically, decides to elaborate on his arguments with details, background information, and depth. But instead, every time he’s ever pressed on his bizarre, murky theories, he disappears. And I find that frustrating.
Also, I really must stop arguing with people who are clearly mentally unstable.
“He also makes a point about The Reader. Harvey bought that award on older voters –”
You mean the same voters who have nominated titles like you beloved Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark or Jaws or The Exorcist or The Sixth Sense? Look, I’m annoyed as hell that The Dark Knight got snubbed – although I prefer to take my annoyance out on Frost/Nixon, at least The Reader‘s fans were damned passionate! – but this is the same Academy that, in the past, has nominated both blockbuster AND wishy washy dramas.
Brokeback Mountain shouldn’t have been nominated anyway. It was just another arthouse movie. They should have put Star Wars 3 or Harry Poterr in, they made shitloads of money. Or they could have placed Batman Begins, and essentially given TDK a preemptive nomination…and maybe even a win (I liked seeing Batman punch ninjas).
“Ricky Gervais’ “Extras” crack about Holocaust movies being a one-way ticket to the Oscars is looking more and more prescient, isn’t it?”
Tell that to Defiance (unless you want to argue that it’s about life and living).
No this has less to do with the subject matter or even Harvey but more to do with being liked and how the other contenders split.
Gervais’ joke was neither new (come on) nor particularly clever (come on). In fact it was in pretty poor taste considering. He is becoming more and more like his character in “The Office”. As a fan I’m not too happy about that.
“Quality don’t mean shit if your films don’t get seen.”
Depends on what we’re talking about, right? If it’s business, you are correct. But the Oscars are supposed to honor quality *irrespective* of business. We both know that there is some bleed-over, because business (both too much business and too little business) shapes perception. Nonetheless, the ostensible purpose of awards bodies is to recognize quality irrespective of box office performance.
Chucky, is it inconceivable that a great movie could be mismarketed? Isn’t it possible that a brilliant work of art gets turned over to crap marketers who don’t know how to advertise it or distribute it? If such mismarketing results in box office failure, can’t that film still be worth recognizing for its artistic achievement?
Isn’t it, in fact, a *good* thing that awards bodies and/or critics can often call attention to a great movie that has been mismarketed into obscurity?
I suppose you say “no” to all of the above, since every single thing you ever post to this blog is about rewarding or punishing movies based on their marketing, irrespective of their artistic worth.
Oh, by the way, I’m selling girl scout cookies. Would you like to buy any from me? Full disclosure: I took the cookies out and replaced them with dirt. But the boxes are awesome!
Roman: it’s a piece of shit movie, that will always be remembered in infamy. Seriously son; stop trying to save it. It’s already dead.
It’s so funny that a lot of people who seem to be arguing against the Academy voting for quality movies in lieu of movies that everyone sees and likes are probably those who look down on the audience for Michael Bay or PG-13 horror movies. Because those are for sheep, right? But TDK is for the people!
Once again, Sam, you’re the voice of reason. Your points are so good, you’ll probably be ignored instead of ridiculed. š
Okay, so now that I’ve actually seen Waltz with Bashir – a quite excellent piece of filmmaking – I have to take even more exception with Chucky and his habit of bashing movies that he hasn’t seen.
Chucky: For your information, it’s a film about a former Israeli soldier haunted by the memories of military events of the past that he witnessed but yet had little control over; it’s a film that is on your side. But because of your kneejerk tendencies, you are consigning it to the ashcan, which is simultaneously sad, ignorant, and stupid.
If “Waltz with Bashir” is worthy, then so is “Red Scorpion”. That movie glorified a right-wing butcher and had a direct connection to apartheid South Africa.
You can’t ignore politics when you bring up Oscar nominations. Why was “Frost/Nixon” nominated and “W.” not? Tricky Dick has been dead for 15 years — George Walker Bush is alive and well. After all AMPAS thought McCarthyism was cool.
A revision to an earlier comment:
“Milk” — Play a gay martyr, win an Oscar. It worked for “Boys Don’t Cry”.
Hey, Chucky — I showed Easy Riders, Raging Bulls to my students this morning. The doc incldues a clip from the original trailer for Taxi Driver in which Robert De Niro is Oscar checked as Best Supporting Actor for The Godfather, Part II. Guess that’s why Taxi Driver was such a flop, right?
Greatest Oscar-whoring ad ever: Tatum O’Neal and Irene Cara in 1985’s Certain Fury — “Two Academy Award Winning Stars… In the one motion picture that hurtles them from innocence – to fear – to rage!”
Just screams “SNOB,” doesn’t it?