4 Comments Add your own

• 1. echo4charlie  |  January 12th, 2009 at 8:50 am

  As Mickey Rourke (inebriatedly) stumbled up onto stage and proceeded to give one of the weirdest acceptance speeches that I’ve ever heard, I couldn’t help but think; “Is this guy going to distroy his “comeback” before it even, truly, begins?”

  After thanking his dogs, and talking about how much money that the movie production didn’t have, it makes me wonder; did they pay him is actual cash, or barter for his performance paying him in grease-soaked bags of fast food, drugs and bottles of alcohol?

  I haven’t seen the movie (although, now, I want to), and I’m sure his (weirdly plastic-faced) performance is fine.

• 2. Will Pfeifer  |  January 12th, 2009 at 9:03 am

  I know what you mean. I think Rourke is talented, but this role seems so connected to his own life I wonder what’s going to happen when he takes on a role that’s more of a stretch. I do think Rourke is genuinely grateful for this chance at some sort of redemption, and I hope he doesn’t blow it.

• 3. Brian Michaels  |  January 12th, 2009 at 9:24 am

  I caught REVOLUTIONARY ROAD and SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE this weekend and have now finally seen all of the major award contenders, I gotta say, it’s a pretty good field this year. (While I think SLUMDOG is far from the best film of the year, it’s a good movie, and I don’t hate that it won)

  I am always conflicted about watching the Golden Globes. On the one hand, it’s nice to see some of your favorite movies/stars get some love (IN BRUGES! Kate Winslet!), but these awards are a joke. I mean, it’s this tiny group of nobody journalists who base half their nominations on who they want to show up to their party. Exhibit A: Tom Cruise for TROPIC THUNDER? for an award??? Please….

• 4. Brian Michaels  |  January 12th, 2009 at 9:29 am

  Though she’s often far too opinionated (and wrong) for me, Nikki Finke over at Deadline Hollywood Daily put it perfectly:

  It’s a completely meaningless awards show by a scandal-riddled organization on a network desperate for any kind of ratings. Yet here I am live-blogging the Golden Globes held by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and broadcast on NBC. The reason is because, over the years, Jack Nicholson has mooned the audience, Jim Carrey has talked out of his butt, Christine Lahti was locked in the bathroom, and other unscripted weirdness occurs at this intimate dinner. Including 1982’s low point when Pia Zadora’s husband bought her best “New Star Of The Year”. But that’s the perennial problem with the Golden Globes: they have zero integrity. Studios and networks who lavishly lobby the HFPA usually score nominations. Stars win in direct correlation to their glamour quotient. Everything about the awards is geared towards hyping the media’s interest and the telecast’s ratings. Even the small motley group of freelancers who belong to the HFPA won’t grant membership to the real foreign journalists at the prestige newspapers across the world. NBC and Dick Clark Productions could clean up the Globes but choose not to. Instead, the entire entertainment industry props up this pathetic show because it’s seen as a night-long marketing tool. Therefore, it’s ridiculous to consider the movie categories as a window on the Oscar frontrunners. I thought last year’s Golden Globes were the best ever because the broadcast was cancelled due to the Hollywood writers strike.”

  I especially agree with that last line.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed