PDA

View Full Version : UPSIDE OF ANGER, How did this movie get Overlooked?!?


BorderEevilIII
03-11-2006, 08:25 PM
I am finally watching this movie....its GRRRRREAT!!!!

How can the academy did not give JOAN ALLEN any props?



what a pity

Lazy Boy
03-11-2006, 08:28 PM
I thought she outshone her UOA performance with her magnificently subtle work in Yes. Even compared to Off the Map, I find this to be the least interesting performance from her in 2005.

As to how this movie got overlooked, one reason may be that it was released too early in 2005 (February) to be remembered come December.

ilovemovies
03-11-2006, 08:30 PM
Eh. I liked the movie but like The Constant Gardener, Good Night and Good Luck, Capote, Brokeback Mountain and A History of Violence, it's good but kind of overrated. I did love the performances though. Allen is great and so is Costnor. And all of the girls are great especially Keri Russell. But my favorite performance in the movie is from the director himself, Mike Binder.

Katsumoto
03-11-2006, 10:30 PM
Joan Allen's performace was by far the best female acting of the year. Bottom line. It's a tragedy she was not nominated.

Kevin Costner was also amazing in this role, another stupid decision not to nominate him.

HeavyFknMetal
03-11-2006, 10:39 PM
I love this movie as well, 8/10. Allen's performance was amazing, the scene after she gets home from the hospital was so amazing.

thedudeman69
03-11-2006, 11:33 PM
I thought the writing and Joan Allen's performance really made this great film.

riotstarter
03-11-2006, 11:55 PM
I agree with all of you here but it's not hard to see why it got overlooked. It's a slow paced film, with focus on a romance between two older people (something most audiences dont' really dig on). You guys are right on the money, Joan Allen did a fantastic job but great shows like this and House of Sand and Fog to name another one, will generally go unnoticed, just because people have become kind of conditioned to like a certain thing.

ilovemovies
03-11-2006, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by riotstarter
I agree with all of you here but it's not hard to see why it got overlooked. It's a slow paced film, with focus on a romance between two older people (something most audiences dont' really dig on). You guys are right on the money, Joan Allen did a fantastic job but great shows like this and House of Sand and Fog to name another one, will generally go unnoticed, just because people have become kind of conditioned to like a certain thing.

Yeah, but House of Sand and Fog did not go unnoticed by the academy. Ben Kingsley and Shoreh Aghdashloo were both nominated. The original poster was wondering how the oscars were able to overlook this movie.

riotstarter
03-12-2006, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by ilovemovies
Yeah, but House of Sand and Fog did not go unnoticed by the academy. Ben Kingsley and Shoreh Aghdashloo were both nominated. The original poster was wondering how the oscars were able to overlook this movie.

I know they got the nominations but how many people really dug on that movie? It went very unnoticed, despite it tackling the same issues as Crash with about 84 times the effectiveness.

dman476
03-12-2006, 12:55 AM
The film was pretty good. 7/10.
Like everyone said, Allen was amazing in the film and she should have gotten the oscar.
I love that scene where Binder's head "explodes."
Funny film actually, I may have to rewatch it.

Strider
03-12-2006, 04:19 AM
I found The Upside of Anger to be merely decent, but not great. Joan Allen and Kevin Costner deliver fine performances, and if the film had been released later in 2005, Allen probably would have received an oscar nomination.

Strider

MrScissorhands
03-12-2006, 05:46 AM
Considering she also played the lead in 'Yes' this year, she was definitely the best actress of 2005.

Why didn't she get nominated ? Well let's see : she didn't play an existing person, she didn't play ugly, she didn't play a man, ...

ComeNightfall
03-12-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by MrScissorhands
Considering she also played the lead in 'Yes' this year, she was definitely the best actress of 2005.

Why didn't she get nominated ? Well let's see : she didn't play an existing person, she didn't play ugly, she didn't play a man, ...
Yeah, it seems in recent years the Academy is only recognizing those performances. Maybe this year's movies will offer something different.

TylerDurden182
03-12-2006, 12:31 PM
It was an ok film, 7/10. Joan Allen was the best thing about it.