what does scorcese have to do?

at our oscar gathering the consensus was that his best shot will be to make a holocaust movie about a black paraplegic who survives the camps and then single-handedly de-segregates alabama (jamie foxx wins best supporting actor as martin luther king). that or maybe a mussolini biopic.

not that any of us (at the gathering) have actually seen “the aviator”.

and oh, in your face, rwanda!

2 thoughts on “what does scorcese have to do?”

  1. I can only imagine how annoyed I would have been at the dull, steady drip of Oscars to the obvious (and on occasion obviously bad) choices if I had actually watched the thing. It was annoying enough to wake up and see the list.

    Although I whupped Arnab. In that way, this year’s Oscar race was the most thrilling ever. Frisoli talked to someone who talked to someone, and knew the fix was in. Otherwise, I’d have whupped him, too.

    Instead of the show, we watched another episode of “Freaks and Geeks.” I seek atonement for every skeptical comment and snide remark I made about the show and its fans.

  2. Oooh I bet Mike watched. Beyonce deserved an Oscar for simply being on the stage. And Jaime Foxx, gods bless him, he was the only individual to bring something, anything to the podium. Give him an Oscar every year, damn it. Hell, let him play Mussolini! If Scorsese keeps making remakes he may never get the nod (though the DiCaprio, Wahlberg, Nicholson flick sounds tasty even if I have seen Infernal Affairs and the Kurosawa project sounds Oscar ready but he’s going to have to make some audience weep for that one to work). I’m thinking Scorsese will be forced to return to “form” and make another grungy gangster film that both rehabilitates DeNiro while also outshining GoodFellas, and I’m afraid neither of those goals will ever be achievable. Its Irving Thalberg all the way for Marty. I hope he turns it down when offered . . . publically.

Leave a Reply