Yes, I should have posted this on Monday (when it was written), back when everybody actually cared. But I didn't. And, lo, you're stuck reading ramblings about the 82nd Academy Awards a few days after they mattered. Or you've already quit reading by this point, and aren't stuck at all.
Unlike most of the press, I personally think the opening number to the 82nd Academy Awards was lame. Since when do the Oscars have to riff on the Emmys? Neil Patrick Harris was a delight hosting last year's television awards, but he was off... way off... at the Oscars. Seemed overly nervous, too.
Question: If Best Picture goes to the producers, how come Best Animated Film goes to the directors?
Advice to Miley Cyrus: Pick better dresses and learn to stand up straight. You look like Lurch.
Crazy Heart won Best Music (Original Song). Even with the presence of Disney's obligatory nominations, this one was really no contest. In fact, out of all the categories, this was the only no-brainer.
Experimenting with a return to ten Best Picture nominations was both a success and a failure. It was a success in that it undoubtedly provided much-needed exposure to films that would not have otherwise garnered that exposure (and allowed Up to be nominated!), but it was a failure in that it provided nothing to help the telecast's ratings. Sure, you'll point out the overnights, but wait a few years. Ratings will drop. Again.
Gotta love that Kanye-moment for the winner of Best Documentary Short. It's even better if you know that the two recipients are suing each other.
So... The Hurt Locker: 6; Avatar: 3. Something tells me this will go over like Gandhi winning over E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial.
Best acceptance speech: Sandra Bullock. A close second was Geoffrey Fletcher (Adapted Screenplay).
Can someone tell me what the Hell was wrong with George Clooney?
Yes, I'm upset that The Hurt Locker won Best Picture. I was rooting for Inglourious Basterds, but it never had a chance. Other than that, I have no issue with the other five Oscars The Hurt Locker took home (I take that back... I have an issue with Best Original Screenplay).
And that, my friends, is that.
Showing posts with label Hurt Locker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hurt Locker. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
A Better Oscars Telecast
So, the nominations for the 82nd Academy Awards have been announced, and I'm a bit intrigued. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin are slated to share hosting duties, and the Academy will get to find out that their idea of 10 Best Picture nominations is redundant, anti-elitist, and will have none of the desired effect that the Academy hopes it has (drawing in more casual viewers).
Seriously, how did they come to the conclusion that adding five more films a "casual viewer" is supposed to care about is going to make more "casual viewers" tune in? And, keep in mind, this is after they came to the conclusion that the Oscars telecast is "too long" (a notion that I disagree with, but whatever).
And, with all apologies to Kathryn Bigelow (who is my favorite female director of all time), I am wholly opposing The Hurt Locker's run at Best Picture. I just can't support that film. I don't care if it wins any of the other awards it's been nominated for (Actor in a Leading Role, Cinematography, Directing, Film Editing, Original Score, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Original Screenplay) ... but I'm hoping beyond all hope that it doesn't win Best Picture. It is a dishonest film and unworthy of the honor.
Anyway... on to the issue at hand: the lengthy telecast.
The solution, if the Academy truly is concerned with the television audience, is simple. In fact, it's already in place. You know how all of those other channels air their "red carpet" specials that lead up to the actual Oscars, essentially making everyone watch bad hosts ask stupid questions on E! or TV Guide channel, right before you switch to ABC to watch the actual show?
Well, yeah... that.
As much as I'm loathe to admit it, there are - quite simply - categories of Oscars that the general public simply doesn't care about. As in, really: who the Hell cares? Now, I care, and I like watching all of the categories... I even like catching the sci-tech Oscars. The again, I only watch one awards show per year, and the Oscars is it.
Sorry... back on track.
Oscar categories that the general public simply doesn't care about. Air those on another cable channel leading up to the "Oscar categories that the general public DOES care about." Give us pre-Oscar counter-programming to those banal red carpet shows. Give your viewership OPTIONS. Let's face it, options always help.
If the Academy really does want to control telecast length, this is the way to do it. Move the two documentary awards to this lead-up show on Bravo network. Move the two short film awards over. And move the two sound and one visual effects award (I REALLY hate that notion, but whatever works).
Seriously, that's really the only way it's going to work. Of course, it's a bit un-Politically Correct as far as Hollywood is concerned, but come on. The irony here is that with the additional telecast time inherent to having what is essentially two shows, the Academy would be more inclined to add new awards (such as Best Stunts), and it would become even feasible to have an entire Oscars dedicated to documentary and short film (can you imagine a Best Director or Best Cinematography award JUST for documentaries? That would rock!)
Simply put, though the Academy Awards are designed as self-serving elitist awards (and I seriously don't mean that in a negative fashion), the producers of the Oscar telecast feel the need to tailor to the viewing audience. The problem is... finding a middle ground simply for broadcast purposes is going to be far more difficult than even the imagination factory of Hollywood can handle. Pick a target (either the industry or the public), and fit your show to that. Just do it; then quit complaining about it.
Personally, I like the Oscars show as it's been for the past 20 years, but that's me.
Seriously, how did they come to the conclusion that adding five more films a "casual viewer" is supposed to care about is going to make more "casual viewers" tune in? And, keep in mind, this is after they came to the conclusion that the Oscars telecast is "too long" (a notion that I disagree with, but whatever).
And, with all apologies to Kathryn Bigelow (who is my favorite female director of all time), I am wholly opposing The Hurt Locker's run at Best Picture. I just can't support that film. I don't care if it wins any of the other awards it's been nominated for (Actor in a Leading Role, Cinematography, Directing, Film Editing, Original Score, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Original Screenplay) ... but I'm hoping beyond all hope that it doesn't win Best Picture. It is a dishonest film and unworthy of the honor.
Anyway... on to the issue at hand: the lengthy telecast.
The solution, if the Academy truly is concerned with the television audience, is simple. In fact, it's already in place. You know how all of those other channels air their "red carpet" specials that lead up to the actual Oscars, essentially making everyone watch bad hosts ask stupid questions on E! or TV Guide channel, right before you switch to ABC to watch the actual show?
Well, yeah... that.
As much as I'm loathe to admit it, there are - quite simply - categories of Oscars that the general public simply doesn't care about. As in, really: who the Hell cares? Now, I care, and I like watching all of the categories... I even like catching the sci-tech Oscars. The again, I only watch one awards show per year, and the Oscars is it.
Sorry... back on track.
Oscar categories that the general public simply doesn't care about. Air those on another cable channel leading up to the "Oscar categories that the general public DOES care about." Give us pre-Oscar counter-programming to those banal red carpet shows. Give your viewership OPTIONS. Let's face it, options always help.
If the Academy really does want to control telecast length, this is the way to do it. Move the two documentary awards to this lead-up show on Bravo network. Move the two short film awards over. And move the two sound and one visual effects award (I REALLY hate that notion, but whatever works).
Seriously, that's really the only way it's going to work. Of course, it's a bit un-Politically Correct as far as Hollywood is concerned, but come on. The irony here is that with the additional telecast time inherent to having what is essentially two shows, the Academy would be more inclined to add new awards (such as Best Stunts), and it would become even feasible to have an entire Oscars dedicated to documentary and short film (can you imagine a Best Director or Best Cinematography award JUST for documentaries? That would rock!)
Simply put, though the Academy Awards are designed as self-serving elitist awards (and I seriously don't mean that in a negative fashion), the producers of the Oscar telecast feel the need to tailor to the viewing audience. The problem is... finding a middle ground simply for broadcast purposes is going to be far more difficult than even the imagination factory of Hollywood can handle. Pick a target (either the industry or the public), and fit your show to that. Just do it; then quit complaining about it.
Personally, I like the Oscars show as it's been for the past 20 years, but that's me.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Irreviews, 2010: Issue III
Well, in the short history of "Irreviews" (formerly the inappropriately-named "One-Line Movie Reviews"), this is the first time that the entire list is "SEE it" films. Sure, there used to be ten titles per list, and there are heavy personal reservations concerning The Hurt Locker, but it's still kinda cool.
9 (2009)
Director: Shane Acker
Writer(s): Pamela Pettler, Shane Acker (story)
Starring: Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly
-----
This movie did poorly in its US domestic release. Why? I have no idea, but it reinforces the notion that American audiences are pretty stupid. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, but if you've not seen this movie yet, do so as soon as possible. Both the narrative and visual concepts behind this animated wonder are, without reserve, absolutely brilliant. I refuse to give anything else away. My only complaint: it's too short. I could've watched this story for another 10 hours.
Verdict: SEE it. One of the best animated movies you'll ever see.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Writer(s): Mark Boal
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
-----
A critics darling, this is a film that suffers from a typical problem in Hollywood: the more you know about the subject matter (in this case, the Army and Explosive Ordnance Disposal), the less you'll like it. That stated, it is replete with outstanding performances (including smile-inducing cameos by Guy Pierce, David Morse, and Ralph Fiennes), excellent direction, and good cinematography. That it is thoroughly inaccurate in its depiction of the military is both expected and a little sad, resigning a film that could have truly been a wondrous war film to yet another example of how Hollywood likes to pretend it's in touch with geopolitics, but really has no clue. Still, Bigelow demonstrates a remarkable ability to build and maintain tension, and (objectively) it really is a good film. That stated, I didn't like it. Hated it, in fact.
Verdict: SEE it. You'll probably appreciate it more than I did.
Invictus (2009)
Director: Clint Eastwood
Writer(s): Anthony Peckham, John Carlin (book)
Starring: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon
-----
Based on the true story of the post-Apartheid South African rugby team and its push to win the Rugby World Cup. Make no mistake, this is less a sports movie than it is a memoir/biopic concerning a very interesting event (a couple, actually) in South African history. Though not without its faults (the soundtrack is a bit over-the-top at times), Clint Eastwood continues his streak of excellent films and reinforces my belief that he is the greatest living American film director. Invictus, Eastwood's attempt at "a Ron Howard film," one-ups Howard at his own game.
Verdict: SEE it.
The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)
Director: Grant Heslov
Writer(s): Peter Straughan, Joe Ronson (book)
Starring: George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey
-----
A comedy adaptation of the book by Joe Ronson. A completely enjoyable and genuinely funny film, it manages to present "psychic spies" in both a humorous and informative fashion. The casting is top notch, and the actors (down to and including the supporting actors) somehow take their characters seriously without really taking their characters seriously. The ending doesn't quite work, but other than that it's worth the viewing.
Verdict: SEE it. Whether you believe in this stuff or not, it's a good movie.
Up in the Air (2009)
Director: Jason Reitman
Writer(s): Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner, Walter Kirn (novel)
Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick
-----
Jason Reitman appears to specialize in films concerning controversial occupations (see Thank You For Smoking), letting us in on the probable negative impacts those occupations have on our society, while portraying the willing souls in those occupations as regular people. And, hey, it works. While there is nothing overtly spectacular about Up in the Air (including Clooney's acting), it is Clooney's public persona that so perfectly fits this film. As we would imagine Mr. Clooney in a bar having drinks, so we see the character of Ryan Bingham unveiled on the silver screen. A superb film? No, not really. But it is very, very good, and though I hesitate to claim that Clooney gives one of his best performances, he is certainly the center of Up in the Air's attention. Extra kudos for ditching the "Hollywood ending."
Verdict: SEE it.
9 (2009)
Director: Shane Acker
Writer(s): Pamela Pettler, Shane Acker (story)
Starring: Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly
-----
This movie did poorly in its US domestic release. Why? I have no idea, but it reinforces the notion that American audiences are pretty stupid. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, but if you've not seen this movie yet, do so as soon as possible. Both the narrative and visual concepts behind this animated wonder are, without reserve, absolutely brilliant. I refuse to give anything else away. My only complaint: it's too short. I could've watched this story for another 10 hours.
Verdict: SEE it. One of the best animated movies you'll ever see.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Writer(s): Mark Boal
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
-----
A critics darling, this is a film that suffers from a typical problem in Hollywood: the more you know about the subject matter (in this case, the Army and Explosive Ordnance Disposal), the less you'll like it. That stated, it is replete with outstanding performances (including smile-inducing cameos by Guy Pierce, David Morse, and Ralph Fiennes), excellent direction, and good cinematography. That it is thoroughly inaccurate in its depiction of the military is both expected and a little sad, resigning a film that could have truly been a wondrous war film to yet another example of how Hollywood likes to pretend it's in touch with geopolitics, but really has no clue. Still, Bigelow demonstrates a remarkable ability to build and maintain tension, and (objectively) it really is a good film. That stated, I didn't like it. Hated it, in fact.
Verdict: SEE it. You'll probably appreciate it more than I did.
Invictus (2009)
Director: Clint Eastwood
Writer(s): Anthony Peckham, John Carlin (book)
Starring: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon
-----
Based on the true story of the post-Apartheid South African rugby team and its push to win the Rugby World Cup. Make no mistake, this is less a sports movie than it is a memoir/biopic concerning a very interesting event (a couple, actually) in South African history. Though not without its faults (the soundtrack is a bit over-the-top at times), Clint Eastwood continues his streak of excellent films and reinforces my belief that he is the greatest living American film director. Invictus, Eastwood's attempt at "a Ron Howard film," one-ups Howard at his own game.
Verdict: SEE it.
The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)
Director: Grant Heslov
Writer(s): Peter Straughan, Joe Ronson (book)
Starring: George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey
-----
A comedy adaptation of the book by Joe Ronson. A completely enjoyable and genuinely funny film, it manages to present "psychic spies" in both a humorous and informative fashion. The casting is top notch, and the actors (down to and including the supporting actors) somehow take their characters seriously without really taking their characters seriously. The ending doesn't quite work, but other than that it's worth the viewing.
Verdict: SEE it. Whether you believe in this stuff or not, it's a good movie.
Up in the Air (2009)
Director: Jason Reitman
Writer(s): Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner, Walter Kirn (novel)
Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick
-----
Jason Reitman appears to specialize in films concerning controversial occupations (see Thank You For Smoking), letting us in on the probable negative impacts those occupations have on our society, while portraying the willing souls in those occupations as regular people. And, hey, it works. While there is nothing overtly spectacular about Up in the Air (including Clooney's acting), it is Clooney's public persona that so perfectly fits this film. As we would imagine Mr. Clooney in a bar having drinks, so we see the character of Ryan Bingham unveiled on the silver screen. A superb film? No, not really. But it is very, very good, and though I hesitate to claim that Clooney gives one of his best performances, he is certainly the center of Up in the Air's attention. Extra kudos for ditching the "Hollywood ending."
Verdict: SEE it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
