The W
Views: 101473444
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.12.14 1034
The W - Random - And here they is (Oscar noms) (Page 2)
This thread has 54 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(3074 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (49 total)
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3615 days
Last activity: 3615 days
#21 Posted on
I do think the movie going populace doesn't have the best taste in the world, but to say they have none is stupid. Gangs and Two Towers really good numbers at the box office. The Hours, Chicago and Pianoist just look like boing period pieces and not too many people want to see it through that, lord knows I had enough of those in the 80s. I also think the studios don't want to invest too much in them, because this films get what I call a "Whisper Vibe" where no one really sees the film, but they know someone who knows someone who saw it and they said it was good. I just can't see Chicago or the Hours being worth two hours of my life, I'd rather go see Old School or Daredevil where I can get some enjoyment. If I wanted to see two hours of depression, I'd go to work.

A Fan- Just because they dress up in Victorian outfits doesn't mean it has to be nominated.
J. Kyle
Boudin blanc








Since: 21.2.02
From: The Land of Aloha

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 13 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.56
Jkyle.com says:


    Originally posted by HrdCoreJoe
    "Can Miyazaki beat Disney? God, I hope so."

    Considering Buena Vista distributed this movie, a Disney owned company, even if one of their two movies don't win (Lilo and Stitch and Treasure Planet) they'd still "win" if Spirited Away gets the nod. As long as Spirit and Ice Age don't win I'll be a happy Mouseketeer.

Just so the story of Spirited Away has a happy ending, I think you guys should know that SA kicked Treasure Planet's marketed, wide relaeased ass in per theatre gross.

I'm kind of torn, because I like Lilo and Stitch so much, but I know Spirited Away should take it for being so fucking fantastic.

That being said, I'm fairly sure it'll go to Ice Age.



JKyle.com - Now with El Nastio!
110402Chicks.
"I've sat up here and lied to America before Conan... Rollerball sucked." LL Cool J
Excalibur05
Knackwurst








Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 10 days
AIM:  
#23 Posted on

    Originally posted by spf2119
    Perhaps the reason limited release films are nominated often yet not seen by many is because the taste of most filmgoers sucks big honking ass? The Oscars are (ostensibly) to recognize quality, not what movie people wanted to see the most. The fact that most people would rather go see "Kangaroo Jack" than "The Pianist" does not make DF a better film. It just makes me sad for the movie going public.


But who is to say that the general movie-going public is wrong? Maybe you (and the Academy) are wrong. Spiderman did blockbuster business, and for a reason. It was an action movie that delivered on almost everything it promised featuring some inspired performances by at least two of the leads (Willem Defoe and Tobey McGuire). Whereas, Adaptation featured a solid performance by two Nicholas Cages in a really stuffy "This WILL Be Critically Acclaimed" Movie. Excuse me (and most of America) for prefering the former over the latter.

Honestly, the Oscars has never been anything more than a contest for which studio can make the "best" plodding moralistic drama before January first. On the few occasions when they DO make the right decision (by picking a movie which was BEST in every category, even for the common movie going audience), the next year they are back to picking high strung crap again. Just because something is pretentious, doesn't mean it's good. At least something like Kangaroo Jack...make that Austin Powers is fun to watch.



RAW Satire 2/10
Buffy 7.13 gets a 5.0 Three subplots and the BEST one featured Giles getting groped by Andrew. Egh.
krakken2000
Kishke








Since: 31.10.02
From: seattle

Since last post: 2058 days
Last activity: 1785 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.36

    Originally posted by A Fan
    I do think the movie going populace doesn't have the best taste in the world, but to say they have none is stupid. Gangs and Two Towers really good numbers at the box office. The Hours, Chicago and Pianoist just look like boing period pieces and not too many people want to see it through that.


Have you actually seen the per screen averages for Chicago? It is off the chart! (over $15,000 per screen. Compared to $8,668 for last weeks #1 The recruit). People are seeing it and even more people will see it this week when it expands to over a thousand additional screens, when it surpasses "Gangs of New York" in total box office.

I'm all for big exploding popcorn entertainment (I loved "Spiderman" even though it does have some severe faults and some flat out bad cgi) and I certainly think comedy gets shortchanged when it comes to recognizing great films, but I'm also excited by watching a movie with real relationships and human emotion. The thing that is great about the oscars is that as much as we want it to really be about what is the absolute best in film, its really all about marketing films that would often be overlooked by the general public. Without having the oscars to sell smarter more mature films all we would get are films geared towards those with the most time and cash...namely teenagers. I don't want to have "Old School" and "Kangaroo Jack" be my only entertainment options.

"Chicago" is an amazing film, a film that without the promise of awards or recognition just wouldn't see the light of day in this day and age because studios wouldn't see the point in spending the cash to make that film.






Flaming Box of Stuff, blah, blah, blah...
Excalibur05
Knackwurst








Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 10 days
AIM:  
#25 Posted on
Alright, here's the deal.

If the Pianist featured CG Aliens that shot lasers out of their eyes in just one scene, I'd take back everything bad I've ever said about it.

I understand that the Oscars are the only big stage for dramas (except for the Golden Globes and Sundance, of course), but that doesn't mean that they're the best movie every year. I do hope that Chicago succeeds as well as you think it will. Musicals are great fun when you do them right (not that I'll go see it, but I'm still pulling for the genre).



RAW Satire 2/10
Buffy 7.13 gets a 5.0 Three subplots and the BEST one featured Giles getting groped by Andrew. Egh.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 2045 days
Last activity: 1979 days
#26 Posted on
""Chicago" is an amazing film, a film that without the promise of awards or recognition just wouldn't see the light of day in this day and age because studios wouldn't see the point in spending the cash to make that film."

Nonononono. Chicago is an above-average musical that does nothing new, is INCREDIBLY flatly directed (it's a total slap to the face of Peter jackson that ob marshall was nominated) and features one of the most unsexy, unlikeable lead performances in history. I have no problem with it being nominated (it was always going to make the final five because the Academy are big dopes) but it is NOT Best Picture material. Neither is The Hours; it's well-made Bohemian drama that just SCREAMS "Gimme An Award", more to be admired than actually enjoyed. If I had my drothers, we'd see Gangs Of New York, The Two Towers, Catch Me If You Can, and Minority Report ALL with a raft of awards, because they combine intelligence with spectacle to make the perfect movie package; but hey, I'm not a mega-rich studio owner looking to maximise my profits, so what do I know.






"Here's the thing: I don't give a tupenny f*ck about your moral conundrum, you meatheaded shit-sack. That's pretty much the thing." Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, Gangs Of New York. You'd be surprised at how many statements this can be used as a response to.

Wolfram J. Paulovich
Frankfurter








Since: 11.11.02
From: Fat City, Baby

Since last post: 3014 days
Last activity: 2385 days
AIM:  
#27 Posted on
I have to agree with what others have said about Jackson and Two Towers. I think everyone in Hollywood realizes what an amazing job he's done in bringing the trilogy, and it (and Jackson) will win next year as a nod to the whole epic.

There is no way Polanski will win. They've nominated him since he fled the country, and it seems that they do that to acknowledge that he deserves to be a winner. But there would be an absolute shitrain of protest over honoring a man who is for all intents and purposes guilty of statutory rape.

The double nomination of Julianne Moore guarantees that she will win one. I'm picking supporting actress. Zeta-Jones is seen as "fluff"; Kathy Bates already won one; Streep has won too many; and Queen Latifah is the "multicultural" nomination. That leaves Moore to take supporting actress and "make the Best Actress pick that much easier."

The "multicultural nod" goes for Salma Hayek in the Best Actress category. Also in best actress: Nicole Kidman probably won't win, because the Academy has a bias against actors in heavy make-up for whole movies (e.g. Ralph Feinnes in "The English Patient"); Diane Lane is seen as "fluff" because of the movie she was in. And, since I think Julianne Moore will take supporting actress, that leaves Zellweger to take Best Actress both on the strength of "Chicago" and also on the sympathy-nod basis for having been previously nominated.

I'm taking Michael Caine for Best Actor for several reasons. One, he has a huge body of unrecognized "best actor" work. (People still remember "Sleuth.") Two, he was on the outs with Hollywood for personal demons and etc; and he's made a personal comeback. Three, he's getting old, and the nostalgia factor is heavy in his favor. Four, no one wants to hear another Nicholson acceptance speech (and his number of previous wins combined with his often ending up in police reports works against him). Five, Daniel Day-Lewis won for "My Left Foot," has snubbed Hollywood for some years, and Hollywood doesn't like that. Six, Nicholas Cage immediately became an embarrassment with "Con Air" and "Gone in Sixty Seconds" after winning for "Leaving Las Vegas." Seven, Adrien Brody is too new: he needs to lose once or twice before getting a nod.

I can't believe I wrote this much about this crap. I'm stopping now.



To get to The Obtuse Angle Archive, Click Here

Burns: Smither's this beer isn't working! I don't feel any younger, or funkier....
Smithers: I'll switch to the tablespoon, sir.
odessasteps
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: MD, USA

Since last post: 185 days
Last activity: 152 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.41

    Originally posted by A Fan
    I am baffled on why Signs didn't at least get something. I am sensing a level of hate from the Academy coming towards M. Night.


One can only hope.



"No one's ever done a movie about flowers before. So there are no guidelines."
"What about "Flowers for Algernon"?"
"Well, that's not about flowers. And it's not a movie."
"Ok, I'm sorry, I never saw it." -- Adaptation
krakken2000
Kishke








Since: 31.10.02
From: seattle

Since last post: 2058 days
Last activity: 1785 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.36

    Originally posted by odessasteps

      Originally posted by A Fan
      I am baffled on why Signs didn't at least get something. I am sensing a level of hate from the Academy coming towards M. Night.


    One can only hope.



One can only hope that the reason Signs got zilch was the academy hates M. Night...or one can only hope that the academy hates M. Night period?

M. Night is a frustrating filmmaker. Both Unbreakable and Signs were capable of being great films, yet I think being known as the "swerve ending" director is hurting his artistry. I hope he realizes sometimes you don't need to mindfuck the audience at the end of every picture to tell a good story.

"Chicago is an above-average musical that does nothing new, is INCREDIBLY flatly directed (it's a total slap to the face of Peter Jackson that ob marshall was nominated) and features one of the most unsexy, unlikeable lead performances in history."

Nothing new except make movie musicals relevant 30 years after they were declared extinct. Also, I sooooooo disagree with your statement that the film is flatly directed. Every scene sizzles and explodes while never forgetting the intimate stage vaudeville-centric source material. I'll grant you Renee sucks, but I've already admitted I hate Renee. I don't even particularly like Richard Gere, but Rob Marshall was able to get a performance out of him that is dare I say it...fun? When was the last time you could say that about a Gere performance? If that isn't the sign of some good direction then what is?

And yes Peter Jackson was robbed, but more so last yearin losing to Opie. Its not a lock that next year will be the year that Oscar awards "LOTR" but I certainly hope so.



Flaming Box of Stuff, blah, blah, blah...
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 363 days
Last activity: 50 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.96
Good nominations by the looks of things...2 for Spider-Man. Me happy. Predictions.

Picture: No chance again for LOTR, it's getting its due next year. Chicago's too showy and The Hours too depressing. Showdown between Gangs of New York & The Pianist, with Gangs getting the deuce.
Actor: Old school club here, with 4 of the 5 actors nominated having previous Oscars. Brody won't win because of that. It's between Nicholson & Day-Lewis, with the nod going to Bill the Butcher for creating a truly memorable screen character that'll last forever.
Actress: Moore's 2 noms will probably split her vote, so no go in either category. Hayek & Lane are both happy to be there, so it's between the two sophomore girls: Kidman & Zelwegger. Crapshoot, but give it to Zelwegger.
Supporting Actor: It's between Paul Newman & Chris Cooper, and I'm leaning towards Newman.
Supporting Actress: Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Director: Martin Scorsese. If not him, Polanski.
Original Screenplay: It's between Greek Wedding and the two foreign films that aren't foreign anymore. I say it's Greek Wedding...barely.
Adapted Screenplay: Adaptation.
Cinematography: The late Conrad L. Hall wins for Road To Perdition
Set Decoration: The Two Towers
Costume Design: Gangs of New York
Sound: Spider-Man
Editing: Gangs of New York
Sound Effects Editing; Minority Report
Visual Effects: Two Towers
Makeup: Frida
Song: Chicago
Score: Road To Perdition
Documentary Feature: Bowling For Columbine
Animated Feature: Spirited Away



"I know something that will cheer you up, Wesley"
"Are you programmed to be thinking what I'm thinking?"
"MAKEOVER!!"
Princical Scudworth & Mr. Butlertron; Clone High
odessasteps
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: MD, USA

Since last post: 185 days
Last activity: 152 days
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.41

One can only hope that Academy hates M.Night.

To me, callin someone "the new Spielberg" is not a compliment.

But that's okay, since M. Night is over-rated (clap, clap, clapclapclap).





"No one's ever done a movie about flowers before. So there are no guidelines."
"What about "Flowers for Algernon"?"
"Well, that's not about flowers. And it's not a movie."
"Ok, I'm sorry, I never saw it." -- Adaptation
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 13 hours
#32 Posted on
What makes Chicago so much better than Moulon Rouge? These are just movies for people that are too lazy to see a play.

I really hope Day-Lewis wins best actor. Bill the Butcher is one of the best movie characters to come out in years.

I also would have liked to see Robin Williams get a nod for One Hour Photo. I hate the man, but he put on a perfomance that I liked. Got to give him credit for that.



The Vile1
Lap cheong








Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2070 days
Last activity: 1802 days
#33 Posted on
krakken2000, obviously it just shows the stupidity of the academy. They loved spider-man less than you, but they still nominated it for best visual FX, for a movie you said had "flat out bad CGI"



"I am many things Kal-El, but here I am god."
-Darkseid
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54

    The Academy has to stop allowing limited releases films to squeeze in. The small films get all the hype due to how hard they are to find, but if they were put out in the first week, they would tank and they would never ever be considered. I think its a cheap way to do it plus I know a ton of people who go see About Schmidt and other hard to find movies, I have not might one person who has seen the Hours or Chicago, has anyone actually seen these films??


Chicago has been playing at my local Silver City multiplex for a few weeks now, to packed houses every night. The night I went to see it, people were applauding in between each musical number. It was that damn good.


    I'm taking Michael Caine for Best Actor for several reasons. One, he has a huge body of unrecognized "best actor" work. (People still remember "Sleuth.") Two, he was on the outs with Hollywood for personal demons and etc; and he's made a personal comeback. Three, he's getting old, and the nostalgia factor is heavy in his favor. Four, no one wants to hear another Nicholson acceptance speech (and his number of previous wins combined with his often ending up in police reports works against him). Five, Daniel Day-Lewis won for "My Left Foot," has snubbed Hollywood for some years, and Hollywood doesn't like that. Six, Nicholas Cage immediately became an embarrassment with "Con Air" and "Gone in Sixty Seconds" after winning for "Leaving Las Vegas." Seven, Adrien Brody is too new: he needs to lose once or twice before getting a nod.


It's going to be Day-Lewis or Nicholson. Caine, keep in mind, has won two Best Supporting Oscars, the last one being just three years ago for Cider House Rules.







Well Mr. Burns had done it.
The power plant had won it.
With Rogers Clemens clucking all the while.
Mike Scioscia's tragic illness made us smile.
While Wade Boggs lay unconscious on
the barroom tile.
We're talkin'...
Softball.
From Maine to San Diego.
Talkin'...
Softball.
Mattingly and Canseco.
Ken Griffey's grotesquely swollen jaw.
Steve Sax and his run-in with the law.
We're talkin' Homer...
Ozzie and the Straw.
evilwaldo
Lap cheong








Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3466 days
Last activity: 3246 days
AIM:  
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Freeway:

Best Actor: You forget the Academy's politics. Day-Lewis has to hope for a Chicago surprise as Best Picture to sneak in here. I can't see them giving Best Actor and Best Picture to the same film.

It looks like there will be an awards race between Chicago and Gangs.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your choices. What did you think of Frida? Did you have the same problem with Hayek's performance that I did?

Krakken2000: Going into Chicago I didn't like the idea of Renee in the leading role. But you know what? She surprised the heck out of me. Just like Richard Gere. Maybe I will never be big fans of either one but you have to give Renee credit for really putting on a great performance. The director deserves a nod for pulling out two surprisingly great performances.

oldschoolhero: I could not disagree with you more about Chicago. Chicago is what Moulan Rouge should have been. A musical, not a film disguised as a musical filled with lavish sets and horrible acting. Moulan Rouge beat you over the head with every pop song in the last 50 years. The reason why it never got a nomination for score is that there was nothing original in the score. It was like watching a cover band.

But I will agree with you about Catch Me If You Can. I preferred that over Gangs. There should be more love for that picture.



'I'm, like, angry at numbers.'

'Yeah, there's to many of them and stuff.'

Faggot
Cotechino








Since: 30.1.03
From: Upper Califia

Since last post: 3415 days
Last activity: 396 days
#36 Posted on
Where's Eminem's mothafrickin' Best Actor nomination, NUKKA?
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3615 days
Last activity: 3615 days
#37 Posted on
M. Night overrated?! Jesus, Unbreakable should have won the year it came out instead of Gladitor. M.Night has done three really great films and the end of Signs was not a mind-fuck sure it got cliche' at the end, but at least it was entertaining. I hate to break it to people, but anyone who can do Schindler's List, Jaws, Saving Private Ryan, Empire of the Sun and the Color Purple in one lifetime does some fucking respect. Sure, Speilberg directed a few bad films, but sure one director that hasn't at least four bad films to their credit.

On the subject of what makes Moulin Rouge better than Chicago,

1) IF I wanted to see Chicago, I'd go to Broadway and see it with a cast that knows it by heart.

2) Moulin was fun to watch. I thought I'd hate it, but I found myself really enjoying it. Plus, it paved the way for Chicago to get made.

3) Richard Gere or Ewan McGregor which one is the better actor to watch?

A Fan- I rest my case.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 2045 days
Last activity: 1979 days
#38 Posted on
"Nothing new except make movie musicals relevant 30 years after they were declared extinct. Also, I sooooooo disagree with your statement that the film is flatly directed. Every scene sizzles and explodes while never forgetting the intimate stage vaudeville-centric source material. I'll grant you Renee sucks, but I've already admitted I hate Renee. I don't even particularly like Richard Gere, but Rob Marshall was able to get a performance out of him that is dare I say it...fun? When was the last time you could say that about a Gere performance? If that isn't the sign of some good direction then what is?"

How did it make "musicals relevant"? Three well-known stars getting to play at being stage performers and winning a clutch of awards to go with it. And the direction WAS flat. Marshall was content to sit back and let the material do the talking, rather than taking you inside, using innovative camera angles, deviating from what was expected-in short, taking ANY risks at all. it was a totally anonymous directorial performance, and as far as I'm concerned that is not worthy of a nomination. Plus, I find the musical genre pretty pathetic in the first place. You don't need to be a great actor to simply burst into song, which is what most of Chicago consisted of. They are so much of a law unto themselves that it pisses me off to see them being judged alongside serious, multi-layered attempts at film-making. And I'm not being some arthouse snob here-as I've pointed out, LOTR, Gangs, Minority Report and Catch Me all entertained the Hell outta me without being thoraway fluff like Chicago.



"Here's the thing: I don't give a tupenny f*ck about your moral conundrum, you meatheaded shit-sack. That's pretty much the thing." Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, Gangs Of New York. You'd be surprised at how many statements this can be used as a response to.

evilwaldo
Lap cheong








Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3466 days
Last activity: 3246 days
AIM:  
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    "Nothing new except make movie musicals relevant 30 years after they were declared extinct. Also, I sooooooo disagree with your statement that the film is flatly directed. Every scene sizzles and explodes while never forgetting the intimate stage vaudeville-centric source material. I'll grant you Renee sucks, but I've already admitted I hate Renee. I don't even particularly like Richard Gere, but Rob Marshall was able to get a performance out of him that is dare I say it...fun? When was the last time you could say that about a Gere performance? If that isn't the sign of some good direction then what is?"

    How did it make "musicals relevant"? Three well-known stars getting to play at being stage performers and winning a clutch of awards to go with it. And the direction WAS flat. Marshall was content to sit back and let the material do the talking, rather than taking you inside, using innovative camera angles, deviating from what was expected-in short, taking ANY risks at all. it was a totally anonymous directorial performance, and as far as I'm concerned that is not worthy of a nomination. Plus, I find the musical genre pretty pathetic in the first place. You don't need to be a great actor to simply burst into song, which is what most of Chicago consisted of. They are so much of a law unto themselves that it pisses me off to see them being judged alongside serious, multi-layered attempts at film-making. And I'm not being some arthouse snob here-as I've pointed out, LOTR, Gangs, Minority Report and Catch Me all entertained the Hell outta me without being thoraway fluff like Chicago.



If Chicago picks up a lot of awards you will see more musicals and interest from the big studios about turning musicals into feature films. We may get a full blown Miss Saigon with a huge budget or an animated Cats. The musical genre is the only one that Hollywood has not milked dry yet. Sometimes the simplest approach works best and that is what Marshall went for by embracing the musical rather than trying to turn it into a film. A lot of directors have screwed up great stories by taking liberties with the material. But if you find the musical genre pretty pathetic in the first place then your view is already clouded and will never look at it for its potential.








'I'm, like, angry at numbers.'

'Yeah, there's to many of them and stuff.'

Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 164 days
Last activity: 4 days
#40 Posted on
I just want to chime in and say that I thought that Hayek's performance in Frida was very overrated. She couldn't maintain the limp the whole film, and the rest of her acting was pretty by the books (not bad but not stellar). As I remember it, the worse things were going for her, the worse she limped. When Rivera cheated on her, she could hardly walk.

I think that, in general, the more you know about a person's life, the less you'll like a Hollywood bio-pic. This is why I didn't like Frida as much as most people (and especially critics) and also why I didn't like Beautiful Mind as much as most people and critics (I didn't like that movie much at all). However, I should point out that Frida looks absolutely beautiful (I'm talking about the movie, although Hayek looks fantastic as always) and I love how they depicted Mexico City. I think the film is worth watching just for the sheer beauty and vivid colors.

Oh, and one last bitch: I hate when actors take on accents when they really shouldn't. I couldn't tell which country Ashley Judd was from in that film; it sounded more Eastern European, but it certainly was unlike any Mexican accent I've ever heard. A couple of the other Mexican accents were bad as well, but Judd really stuck out.

EDIT: While I'm bitching, I want more love for Talk to Her. I understand that Spain didn't submit it for Best Foreign Film, but I thought it was the most original and compelling film I've seen in a while (maybe since Memento). It did get the best directing nod, so I shouldn't complain, but that's not gonna stop me!

(edited by Corajudo on 12.2.03 0935)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: VOTE BENSON
Next thread: The world's unhappiest cat.
Previous thread: Amazing Race 4?
(3074 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Like you have room to talk.
- Papercuts!, Animal Inbreeding ??? (2002)
Related threads: Guess The Oscar Nominations! - Oscar Buzz - The only thing that would get me to sit through the Oscars ... - More...
The W - Random - And here they is (Oscar noms) (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.317 seconds.