ROTTEN TOMATOES: Oscar Night: It's "Baby"!

Oscar Night: It's "Baby"!

by RT Staff | February 28, 2005

The race for Best Picture was between "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Aviator" coming in the award show Sunday, but when the night was over, "Million Dollar Baby" emerged with the win. The movie also landed Oscars in three major categories, including best director for Clint Eastwood, best actress for Hilary Swank, and best supporting actor for Morgan Freeman.

While the top prize eluded Martin Scorsese once again, his movie "The Aviator" didn't go home entirely empty-handed, either. It took top honors in five categories, including those for best supporting actress for Cate Blanchett, best art direction for Dante Ferretti (art direction) and Francesca Lo Schiavo (set decoration), best cinematography for Robert Richardson, best costume design for Sandy Powell, and best film editing for Thelma Schoonmaker.

"Ray," the biopic about the late music legend Ray Charles, took two Oscars: best actor for Jamie Foxx and best sound mixing for Scott Millan, Greg Orloff, Bob Beemer, and Steve Cantamessa.

"Sideways" won an Oscar for best adapted screenplay for Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, with best original screenplay going to Charlie Kaufman for "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."

"The Incredibles" won best animated feature, besting "Shrek 2" and "Shark Tale."

The foreign language Oscar went to "The Sea Inside," and best visual effects went to John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara, and John Frazier for "Spider-Man 2."

See the complete list here.

Related Items

Movie:	Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
	Sideways
	The Sea Inside
	Ray
	The Incredibles
	Million Dollar Baby
Celeb:	Martin Scorsese
	Hilary Swank
	Morgan Freeman
	Clint Eastwood
	Jamie Foxx

(1-16 of 16 posts) | Reply

The Senhman writes:
on Feb 28 2005 02:29 PM

Wow, I was expecting The Aviator to get either Best Director or Best Picture - definitely Best Picture. I guess you don't have to make an epic style film to win after all.

(Reply to this)

renodc writes:
on Feb 28 2005 05:24 PM

And we learned that you don't actually have to make a good film to win an Oscar.

(Reply to this)

Quadran writes:
on Feb 28 2005 06:56 PM

Scorsese is WAY OVERDUE for an Oscar. He should have won years ago.

I'm just glad that Eternal Sunshine took home the screenplay oscar. Go Kaufman!

(Reply to this)

sbielawski writes:
on Feb 28 2005 07:38 PM

Years from now, I feel, people will look back and wonder what the Academy was thinking. _Million Dollar Baby_ is like _Kramer v. Kramer_--a decent enough film, but not the best film of the year. And just as time has made many people wonder how _Kramer v. Kramer_ beat out _Apocolypse Now_, they will wonder how _Million Dollar Baby_ beat out _The Aviator_.

Odd, though, that when Martin Scorsese did a boxing film (_Raging Bull_), he lost out to _Ordinary People_, which featured a central character who fights mental illness. Now, Scorsese does a film about someone who is fighting mental illness, and his film loses out to a boxing movie. Marty did the better film in both categories, IMO, and yet he didn't win either Oscar as director or get a Best Picture Oscar. No respect.

(Reply to this)

grihotyagijochona writes:
on Feb 28 2005 08:11 PM

i lost every kind of respect i had for the academy awards. Both best picture, Director was a huge mistake. even the best foreign film wasn't right. the best two foreign films were even not nominated ( BAD EDUCATION & MOTORCYCLE DIARIES)

Well i think it's good Scorsese didn't win the oscar. He is amazing and not winning an oscar is academy's loss. just like Hitchcock and Kubrick not winning oscars. can you belive it three of the best american film makers haven't won an oscar. i was really horiffied when i had heard that scorsese was'nt even nominated for taxi driver. aviator may not be scorsese's best film but it way way better than M$B. i personally thought sideways was the best film of the year and the director should have gone to scorsese.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Feb 28 2005 08:23 PM

Biopics aren't as derserving of the big awards if they're up against an original story that's done very well. Biopics basically just involve actors mimicking certain other people's lives. Most of the Aviator's awards were for it's production values, which it was probably the best in.
...I reckon there's more talent in coming up with your own character rather than just seeing how well you can imitate someone else.

(Reply to this)

the_shadow writes:
on Mar 01 2005 04:28 AM

In reply to this comment (#820153)
Best foreign film at the Oscars are a bit of a farce because of the entry rules (no more than 1 from each country, and confusing/conflicting restrictions based on US release dates). I'm sure Motorcycle Diaries, Bad Education and Very Long Engagement would have been nominated had they been eligible. The real shocker was House of Flying Daggers- should have won best cinematography- not getting nominated despite being entered as China's contender.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Mar 01 2005 04:50 AM

In reply to this comment (#820152)
[b]Years from now...[/b]
Years from now, nobody's gonna remember anything. They'd be occupied with THAT (whatever) year's Oscar surprise... and predictions. Hey, dont worry though. Scorcese is not getting younger, yeah. But consider, Clint got his first for 'Unforgiven' when he was 5 or 6 years older in age than Scorcese... Scorcese is, well, in Academy terms, still a KID... no hope for Dicaprio... he's a toddler then.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Mar 01 2005 05:16 AM

[b]Hey, how about Chris...?[/b]
Hey, how about host Chris Rock refering Selma hayek and Penelope Cruz's arrival on stage: as "the beautifull FOUR presenters"...? Both actresses came with chest cleavage revealing dresses...

(Reply to this)

Spike1967 writes:
on Mar 01 2005 05:59 AM

I love when Chris Rock dissed Halle Berry saying she would be seen in the much anticipated Catwoman 2. I think Scorsese is long overdue for an award. He's a wonderful director.

(Reply to this)

brian1990 writes:
on Mar 01 2005 09:10 AM

Thank God Aviator didn't win, Aviator was a visual extravagnza, but way to fucking long. If you look at your watch during a movie you know its pushed the length ( Ironically it seems it won best editing, along with last years winner the Lord Of The Rings the Return of The King which in my opinion was the least edited films ever). But I'm happy the Incredibles beat out Shrek 2 and Spider man 2 won best visual effects.

(Reply to this)

mia108 writes:
on Mar 01 2005 10:31 AM

[b]McOscars![/b]
How about a review of the Oscar-show?? Chris Rock's comment about doing a McDrive Oscarshow next year was close to the truth about this years show: Shorter than ever and boring!! WHY have a great host if you don't use him more? And did they get some sort of package-deal with Beyonce?? Where did all the original singers of the nominated songs go? And giving out awards in the backrow for those who did not deserve the glamour on stage?? (documentary-makers...) Not to mention the hopeless film-montage at the beginning of the show...
In my part of the world we stay up all night (2.30 am - 6.30am ) to watch the Oscars every year and this year it was truly a disappointment! Where can I read a review of the show?
Mia, Denmark

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Mar 03 2005 11:32 AM

In reply to this comment (#820160)
[b]Wait... boring?[/b]
You found THIS year's Oscar's boring? Well, how about last year? When EVERY SINGLE Award went to Lord of the Rings? THAT was boring. Even in the actor and actress fields there was no surprise... This year's was way better.

(Reply to this)

tommybone#1 writes:
on Mar 03 2005 01:04 PM

[b]I agree with "Baby" winning[/b]
All in all, I do agree with "Million Dollar Baby" winning Best Picture and Best Director. Not like Martin Scorsese wasn't deserving, he did a great job with "The Aviator", but Clint Eastwood's direction was overall better. And I agree, Scorsese should've won for either "Raging Bull" or "GoodFellas". It's a travesty to award the least deserving Robert Redford and Kevin Costner when both "Raging Bull" and "GoodFellas" were a lot better than anything they have achieved in their lifetime. Hopefully Scorsese's "The Departed" will bring back the greatness his older movies had and Scorsese will finally win. As for this year, I agree whole-heartedly. "Million Dollar Baby" was indeed the best movie of last year (with "The Incredibles" and "Eternal Sunshine" close behind).

(Reply to this)

sideburnz writes:
on Mar 07 2005 01:25 AM

i'm glad Million Dollar Baby won. gives something else for the conservatives to complain about!

(Reply to this)

sbielawski writes:
on Mar 07 2005 10:39 PM

In reply to this comment (#820154)
If biopics basically just involve actors mimicking certain other people's lives, then the actors in biopics shouldn't even get nominated for acting awards. This year, two of the acting Oscars went to performances in biopics. Jamie Foxx made Ray Charles come alive in a marvelous way. Cate Blanchett was incredible, going well beyond a standard imitation of Kathrine Hepburn (who, as herself, was over the top).

There is a very large difference between a standard impersonation and a biopic performance. A standard impersonation lasts from the few seconds it takes Rich Little (or whoever) to do one joke to the five minutes or so that Dan Aykroyd would get to do a sketch on _Saturday Night Live_. That standard impersonation is generally overblown, since it needs to hit home in a hurry. A biopic performance, on the other hand, has to sustain itself for up to three hours. (Granted, a supporting role is a lot shorter than that.) A biopic role also has to be more nuanced. It's a very difficult thing, as it is so easy to go overboard and characturize the person, as an impressionist would do, but that just doesn't work in a biopic.

As for the idea that it takes more talent to come up with your own character, let me ask you, what were the original characters of _Million Dollar Baby_? We have the girl from a poor background who has had to struggle to make ends meet and who has nothing but her dream and her determination to do whatever she can to achieve that dream. And this is different from_My Fair Lady_ because--oh, yes, in this film, her dream is to become a boxer. Then we have the rough, gruff teacher who you just know is going to melt and teach this scrappy kid. That's another role we've seen a lot. Morgan Freeman's role as the guy who's seen it all isn't so much out of _My Fair Lady_ (where the older gentleman, Colonel Pickering, was more of a comic relief type). That character comes more from even older movies, where he was usually the guy guarding the stage door. All right, the guy guarding the stage door isn't often called the "moral compass" or the movie. That one character has evolved a bit. And yet, several critics were quick to point out that Morgan Freeman has played characters like this in quite a few movies.

I will grant you that _Million Dollar Baby_ is a lot more violent than either _My Fair Lady_ or the backstage movies that had similar characters. But for me, the violence doesn't make it a better movie. OTOH, how many movies can you name where the main character is a pilot, a business tycoon, an engineer, and a movie director?

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Aviator

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links