ROTTEN TOMATOES: BFCA Nominees Announced; "Brokeback" Leads Pack

BFCA Nominees Announced; "Brokeback" Leads Pack

by RT Staff | December 12, 2005

The Broadcast Film Critics Association announced its Critics Choice Awards, and "Brokeback Mountain," Ang Lee's revisionist western, leads the pack with eight nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actor (Jake Gyllenhaal), and Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams).

Paul Haggis' "Crash," a tale of racial conflict in Los Angeles, picked up six nominations, and George Clooney's Edward R. Murrow biopic "Good Night, and Good Luck" scored five.

Here's a list of the nominees in major categories. For the full list, go to http://www.bfca.org/NomineesWinners.asp.

Best Picture

Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Cinderella Man
The Constant Gardener
Crash
Good Night, And Good Luck
King Kong
Memoirs of a Geisha
Munich
Walk The Line

Best Actor

Russell Crowe - Cinderella Man
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Terrence Howard - Hustle and Flow
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix - Walk The Line
David Strathairn - Good Night, And Good Luck

Best Actress

Joan Allen - The Upside of Anger
Judi Dench - Mrs. Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman - Transamerica
Keira Knightley - Pride and Prejudice
Charlize Theron - North Country
Reese Witherspoon - Walk The Line

Best Supporting Actor

George Clooney - Syriana
Kevin Costner - The Upside of Anger
Matt Dillon - Crash
Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain
Terrence Howard - Crash

Best Supporting Actress

Amy Adams - Junebug
Maria Bello - A History of Violence
Catherine Keener - Capote
Frances McDormand - North Country
Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain

Related Items

Movie:	Syriana
	Cinderella Man
	Mrs. Henderson Presents
	Brokeback Mountain
	The Constant Gardener
	Transamerica
	King Kong
	Pride and Prejudice
	Memoirs of a Geisha
	North Country
	Munich
	The Upside of Anger
	Capote
	Walk the Line
	Junebug
	Good Night, And Good Luck
	Hustle & Flow
	A History of Violence
Celeb:	Charlize Theron
	Keira Knightley
	Russell Crowe
	Jake Gyllenhaal
	Judi Dench
	Amy Adams
	Kevin Costner
	Terrence Howard
	Ang Lee
	Michelle Williams
	Felicity Huffman
	Paul Giamatti
	Joan Allen
	Heath Ledger
	Paul Haggis
	Joaquin Phoenix
	Philip Seymour Hoffman
	Frances McDormand
	Rachel Weisz
	George Clooney
	David Strathairn
	Matt Dillon
	Reese Witherspoon
	Catherine Keener
	Maria Bello

(1-20 of 21 posts) | Reply

Yalnif writes:
on Dec 12 2005 03:47 PM

Brokeback Mountain is doing so great. It has won no less than 4 Best Picture Awards so far, including the Golden Lion (Venice Film Festival), Boston Society of Film Critics, L.A. Film Critics and New York Film Critics Circle. It also won 2 awards from the National Board of Review.

(Reply to this)

Yalnif writes:
on Dec 12 2005 04:36 PM

*Brokeback Mountain Awards*

Los Angeles Film Critics Association:

Best Picture

Best Director, Ang Lee

Runner-up for Best Actor, Heath Ledger

----

Boston Society of Film Critics:

Best Picture

Best Director, Ang Lee

Runner-up for Best Actor, Heath Ledger

Runner-up for Best Cinematography, Rodrigo Prieto

----

American Film Institute:

Named one of the 10 best films of the year

----

National Board of Review:

Named one of the 10 best films of the year

Best Director, Ang Lee

Best Supporting Actor, Jake Gyllenhaal

----

New York Film Critics Circle:

Best Picture

Best Director, Ang Lee

----

San Francisco Film Critics Circle Winners:

Best Picture � Brokeback Mountain

Best Director � Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain

Best Actor � Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain

----

Golden Lion (Venice Film Festvial):

Best Picture

(Reply to this)

james@insanitysucks writes:
on Dec 12 2005 04:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#828754)
[b]Brokeback Mountain is a Great Movie![/b]
I saw the movie this past Saturday and it's excellent!!! I don't think totally "straight" guys will be able to get into it, but straight females may find that seeing two hot guys kissing is a little bit of a turn on. lol

Anyway, go see the movie no matter what.

James

(Reply to this)

coh writes:
on Dec 12 2005 07:24 PM

[b]coh[/b]
I read that there's about a total of 55 seconds, out of 130 mins, of man-kissing in this movie. I wish people, especially straight guys (should I point out now that I'm straight? or would the fact that I'm compelled to state that defeat what I'm about to say and group me in with the immature guys that I'm writing to?), would mature just a little....just enough to realize it's a movie about a couple of characters in a good story. Are they gay? Yeah, but what the hell.

(Reply to this)

Aoiboy writes:
on Dec 13 2005 12:16 AM

I'm seeing this movie, first of all, because I'm a huge Ang Lee fan (yeah, I even loved "Hulk" ^_^) and because the response of the critics has been overwhelming so far. I usually don't pay too much attention to what they say, but when they underline so unanimously the quality of the acting, I'm there for sure. In fact, as for the acting, I'm predicting a serious showdown for best actor this year between Heath Ledger and Phillip Seymour Hoffmann...

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Dec 13 2005 06:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#828757)
I heard supposedly there was a gay sex scene in this movie

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Dec 13 2005 06:59 AM

Wow! Now I want to see this even more!

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Dec 13 2005 10:59 AM

Every year Hollywood has an artsy movie with a cause that they want to push to make it look as if it has a social conscience whether the movie is good or not. Looks like this year it's the gay theme. And boy oh boy, they even kiss and have a gay love scene in it. Who cares? If you love that sort of thing then go see it, if not, stay home but don't get on with all the self righteous B.S. that goes with it.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 13 2005 12:16 PM

[b]Praise for Brokeback?[/b]
It seems to me that every now and then, Hollywood and those associated with it latch onto a film that is so controversial in its subject matter, that it is deemed amazing regardless of its technical merits. Now, I have not seen this movie, and it may indeed be well constructed, acted, shot and the like. However, the real point of the critique of the movie should hinge on it subject. There is still quite a bit of public discourse about whether homosexuality is 'natural' or even 'right', or more of a disorder in someone who is dealing with a lot of pain in their lives. There are a whole lot of people and PhDs on both sides of the aisle, and to me that's where the real meat of this picture is at. It would change the outlook on the movie from one of a saddening love story, to one about two men lost in feelings they shouldn't be having. Either way, it's a tragedy and either way, 'Brokeback' seems to at least minimally be bennefiting from Hollywood's love of everything counter to conservative America.

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Dec 13 2005 12:19 PM

I'm a strait guy and I'm going to go see it, it just hasn't come to my town yet. But my favorite film of the year so far is Crash and I'm damn happy that it got 6 nods from the BFCA, I hope it wins them all. As for best actor and actress I'm going with Phoenix, and Witherspoon, unless I see somthing better before the show.

(Reply to this)

brave.sir.rob writes:
on Dec 13 2005 02:02 PM

Merlin and dracus: right on. Cheers.

(Reply to this)

scottybarkbark writes:
on Dec 13 2005 03:09 PM

top contendor for the oscars this year
my picks for oscar best picture noms
hustle and flow
crash
brokeback mountain
walk the line
a history of violence *
* my pic for best film of the year

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Dec 13 2005 03:50 PM

[b]Ways to garner a best film nod/best actor nom[/b]
If you're an actor be gay, be retarded, or be the curmudgeon with the soft inside, and, preferably, die at the end (or lose someone close to you). (Forgot about this one, but most recently, imitate somebody who's died recently).

If you're an actress, be ugly (Hilary Swank -- come on, it's a souther accent, Meryl Streep -- she's alright), or ugly yourself up (Charlize and Nicole, this one's for you) .

If you're a director, make a movie that shows strife, conflict, and "emotion" of "life." (Don't get me started on how contrived Crash was -- if you're going to make a movie that explores "emotional reality", you better make it a bit more real).

And for the best movie, it's got to either be something with a "conscience", something maudlin (but not treacle, for those critics out there -- Million Dollar Baby, this one's for you) or an epic.

(Reply to this)

peterlinas writes:
on Dec 13 2005 05:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#828762)
[b]Praise indeed![/b]
I always find conservative arguments against homosexuality humorous. Considering that every major Psychological Association has deemed homosexuality normal -- neither deviant nor abnormal -- kills any argument against homosexuality. When it comes right down to it, homophobes are usually rooted in their rudamentary and misguided religious beliefs -- specifically (for Christians) Leviticus. Scripture also condemns the consumption of shrimp, and sleeping in on the Sabbath. Besides, I would rather listen to experts from this century!

A beautiful love story is a beautiful love story. And when it happens to include Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, it's a HOT love story. What really is misguided is the fact that they didn't dump their wives! Now that's the directors cut I'd like to see!

(Reply to this)

haelohm writes:
on Dec 13 2005 07:54 PM

[b]YES[/b]
This movie is simply amazing! It deserves every bit of recognition it deserves.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 14 2005 07:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#828767)
[b]Humorous?[/b]
I don't think there is anything funny at all about arguments against homosexuality. I think putting too much faith in humans with PhDs is a little bit ironic, since PhDs are constantly re-visiting their opinions. Those Psychological Associations you put so much trust in, had homosexuality listed as a psychological disorder until the late 70's. So, for the last 25 years it has been deemed 'normal' by SOME, but for the previous 4,000 years of human existence it was considered abnormal. I also find your term 'homophobes' an interesting use of terminology, since that would indicate someone afraid of homosexuals. I highly doubt that anyone is seriously afraid of someone gay or lesbian. I think we should be careful in todays time before we label people bigots. Such harsh terminology shouldn't be used lightly. In fact, throwing it around in forums such as this is very immature and unwise, and downplays the seriousness of such a charge.
Oh, and you're misusing your Scripture quotes. You have to be aware of the historical context of the text before you can really understand it, and you're using it wrong. But that's a different forum topic.

(Reply to this)

peterlinas writes:
on Dec 14 2005 09:01 AM

In reply to this comment (#828769)
[b]Humorous![/b]
You raised the psychology issue, and I merely wanted to remind you that the advisory bodies of said profession disagree with your statement. Strongly and vociferously. I think that homophobes (and that is an apt phrase since phobia is fear without reason or intellect), continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance. If we were to take a broad brush and accept all antiquated thinking, one might assume that a camera picture steals your soul! In other words, imperical data is the most sound.

As for misinterpreting the bible, I apologize. We must not have the same edition. I don't believe I am taking them out of historical context, because you can't cherry pick what is relevant or not today. However, every bible I had studied in my seminary years fully support my statement. There is a whole slew of abominations. But it's hard to see them all, or take them seriously, when you're reading passages highlighted specifically by your preacher. And all of these abominations, in these modern days, are obsolete.

I would rather discuss cinematic issues, but felt best to not leave your "psychological" assessment of the movie alone. On the sole merits of quality cinema, however, Brokeback is brilliant.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Dec 14 2005 09:01 AM

In reply to this comment (#828769)
[b]Perhaps being Gay is like being religious[/b]
While I trust a PhD's opinion about as far as I can throw one, I think it's a bit righteous to deem homosexuality a "disease" or say that homosexuals are having feelings they shouldn't. As for the semantics of calling somebody a "homophobe," you're being a bit asinine -- people are afraid of homosexuality, not physically, for the most part, but mentally and to decry people for using that word is silly (sure, bigot works just as well, but homophobe actually implies a bit more).

As for the reasons why someone is gay:
Could it be chemical/biological/genetic? Sure
Could it be due to some traumatic experience endured as a child? Sure
Could it be due to other mental disorders (e.g., bipolar)? Sure

Nobody knows, but I find it funny that I could pose those same questions to someone on the issue of whether someone were religious and all the answers would be the same.

Of course, the difference between the 2 is the fact that one is the outcast minority, shunned by the preponderant other... Perhaps we should take it on faith that homosexuality is fine and move on.

As for the movie, I hate hollywood.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Dec 14 2005 10:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#828770)
[b]Interesting[/b]
This is the type of dialogue that a movie like Brokeback should raise. And that was the point of my first statement, that this type of conversation is the important thing to take from Brokeback. Not its technical merit, while I'm sure that is superb. I like Ang Lee, his body of work is great. I apologize for the length here, but to reply:
Logically, it wouldn't be considered being 'righteous' to disagree with homosexuality, since as a society we do it all the time. Is it righteous to tell someone who is bi-polar that they have a problem? Or someone who steals that they aren't allowed to do that? I don't think disagreeing here would fit ther term 'righteous' at all. Using the term 'homophobe' is both demeaning and unwarrented. Labeling people is of no use, either in public discourse or private discussions. No one can peer into someone else's soul to see what is in his/her heart, so it would benefit the conversation immeasurably to avoid throwing around insults like that. It is something that has regreatably crept into political discussions as of late, akin to calling Pro Life' people Anti-choice. Someone may believe they ARE anit-choice, but it would be like Pro Life people calling Pro Choice groups Anti Life baby killers. It's unwise, unfair, adds nothing to the conversation and lessens the meaning of the term 'homophobe,' since there ARE cases when its use is warrented.
It was brought up that some "continue to use faith as hollow argument for their stance." Now, I would agree that faith not shared by all parties does not further anyone's case in a debate. However, saying that it is a hollow reason for remaining steadfast in your stance is not correct at all. Peterlinas, by saying that you are presupposing the conclusion that that person's faith is wrong, which it may well be. However, since you cannot prove it is, it would be outside of the realm of logic for you to say it is a hollow stance, since it MIGHT be correct. You cannot pre-suppose anything in a debate like that. Logic 101. You're welcome for the philosophy lesson, make check payable to Merlin235.... J/K, obviously.
On to Scripture. I'm glad you've been to seminary, your years there should give you the background for this discussion. That's awesome. But the Old Testament to which you refer is above everything else, a historical document. It is the history of the Israelites, written by Israelites, for their own record keeping, by Kings, official court scribes, Prophets, Leaders, etc. The only reason people attempt to discredit this amazing and unparalleled historical masterpiece is because it contains the 'fantastic.' Again, circular thinking is making those people presuppose that b/c it contains God and fantastical things, it must be wrong and filled with innacuracies. There are a couple hundred laws in the Old Test, and we'd have to talk about them all individually to correctly asses what their 'relavence' is today, as you might put it. But the fact that they were written long ago hardly makes them obsolete. That is like saying that b/c Newton discovered gravity so long ago, his theories no longer apply. It is NOT reasonable to assume that age dictates the applicability of anything.

(Reply to this)

cmsof writes:
on Dec 15 2005 02:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#828772)
[b]I more think this is the type of dialogue a film l[/b]
What do you think it's porn-counterpart name will be?

I'm thinking something like:

Broke-butt Mountin'

or

Man-Butt Mountin'

Definitely something with the worlds "Butt" and "Mountin'" in it.

Discuss.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com