Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Sour Grapes
I promise this is the last post where I will talk about the Oscar's. I don't know why it is, but the Oscar's this year have had such a hard time going away.
Annie Proulx is the author of the short story that was the basis for Brokeback Mountain. She believes that Brokeback Mountain was robbed of the Best Picture Oscar. I would like to first share a few quotes of her's with you.
Annie Proulx is the author of the short story that was the basis for Brokeback Mountain. She believes that Brokeback Mountain was robbed of the Best Picture Oscar. I would like to first share a few quotes of her's with you.
We should have known conservative heffalump academy voters would have
rather
different ideas of what was stirring contemporary culture.
Roughly
6,000 film industry voters, most in the Los Angeles area, many
living
cloistered lives behind wrought-iron gates or in deluxe rest-homes, out
of
touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that
is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated
city
And rumour has it that Lions Gate inundated the academy
voters with DVD
copies of Trash - excuse me - Crash a few weeks before the
ballot
deadline.
And that was it, three awards, putting it on
equal footing with King Kong.
When Jack Nicholson said best picture went to
Crash, there was a gasp of shock,
and then applause from many - the choice
was a hit with the home team since the
film is set in Los Angeles. It was a
safe pick of "controversial film" for the
heffalumps.
Wow! What a bitch!
I have already made my thoughts on the Best Picture Oscar known, but that isn't even why I am posting this. You know there have probably been many pictures over the years that thought they diserved to win and didn't. But I can't recall one other instance where someone involved with the picture took this kind of spoiled brat attitude about it.
She insults voters and other movies. She appears to be mad that voters preferred the other movie, if Crash was so unworthy why was it even nominated. But more importantly has she even given any thought to the people that worked on Crash. There were people there that worked hard, believed in what they did, and believe they deserve the award they won. Ms. Proulx is just pissing in their faces and pissing all over their accomplishment to make her selfish ass feel better. The voters job is to vote for what they think is the best picture hence the title BEST PICTURE. Their job is not try and please one bitter old skank. I am certain to her Brokeback was the best picture and if she had a vote I am sure that is what she would have voted for. I would also like to point out something in her remarks, it is not Academy voters job to be in touch with society, their job as I have stated is to pick out which movie they liked better, who gives a damn what everyone else likes. If we picked out what everyone else like then the highest grossing movie of the year would always win the Oscar.
Another thing is why is she dragging King Kong into this. What did Kong do to her and her precious movie to warrant being dragged through the mud by Ms Proulx. It wasn't even nominated for Best Picture and she still has to directly insult it. I guess she thinks Brokeback Mountain should have won those Oscars too, Best Special Effects: Brokeback Mountain.
Okay she can be mad at the voters, that is fair. God knows I am still mad at all the Bush voters from the last election. What is a real problem for Anne Proulx is calling Crash, Trash. It is not Crashes fault that you lost, if you don't like the movie that's fine, but the movie and the people involved with it didn't do anything to you, even if Lion's Gate distributed copies of it, you should know enough about the movie business to know that has nothing to do with the people who made Crash, you cantankerous old bat.
You may have noticed that I insulted Anne Proulx profusely through this article. Let's say I have lofty goals and hope by some miracle she ends up reading this and gets either hurt or insulted. Do unto others as they deserve, and maybe she deserves a good hard slap across the face. Then again maybe she just needs to get laid.
Also, if you are afraid that I might be taking her out of context and making her look bad for my own benefit here is her Guardian article.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/oscars2006/story/0,,1727312,00.html
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
George Clooney is the Coolest Celebrity Ever!
"I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud to be a part of this Academy. Proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch."
The is a snippet of George Clooney's acceptance speech at the Oscar's, I was instantly reminded of Michael Moore trying to get across a point like this a couple of years ago and going about it all wrong and pissing everyone off and insuring his place as an Oscar blooper. But Clooney did it with style and the crowd loved him.
At the Oscar's all the presenters and winners get a gift bag. This bag is filled with all kinds of expensive little goodies. Alot of the people that win these awards aren't multimillionaire celebs, but most are. The value of this year's bag was estimated at $180,000. Well, Mr. Clooney decided that since he makes close to twenty million dollars a movie and could afford to buy this bag if he wanted to that maybe it could serve a better purpose. He decided to give it to the united way to auction off, the money will benefit the United Way Hurricane Response and Relief Recovery Fund. How cool is that? I salute you Mr. Clooney.
There are many other things I have admired Clooney for over the years. Alot of very public fueds with Bill O'Reilly, most of which George Clooney got the better of, or at least came off looking better. I loved the fact that he made a small joke at the Golden Globes to the effect that why would someone with the last name of AbramOFF name their son Jack. Funny, but simple, still the family of Jack Abramoff got offended and demanded an apology, and George Clooney's response, NO. It was just a joke and a harmless one at that and he didn't see any reason to apologize.
George Clooney is the perfect mix of class, charm, heart, and nerve. He seems to understand the power of celebrity and uses it responsibly and for good. If we could just somehow instill these values in Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
The is a snippet of George Clooney's acceptance speech at the Oscar's, I was instantly reminded of Michael Moore trying to get across a point like this a couple of years ago and going about it all wrong and pissing everyone off and insuring his place as an Oscar blooper. But Clooney did it with style and the crowd loved him.
At the Oscar's all the presenters and winners get a gift bag. This bag is filled with all kinds of expensive little goodies. Alot of the people that win these awards aren't multimillionaire celebs, but most are. The value of this year's bag was estimated at $180,000. Well, Mr. Clooney decided that since he makes close to twenty million dollars a movie and could afford to buy this bag if he wanted to that maybe it could serve a better purpose. He decided to give it to the united way to auction off, the money will benefit the United Way Hurricane Response and Relief Recovery Fund. How cool is that? I salute you Mr. Clooney.
There are many other things I have admired Clooney for over the years. Alot of very public fueds with Bill O'Reilly, most of which George Clooney got the better of, or at least came off looking better. I loved the fact that he made a small joke at the Golden Globes to the effect that why would someone with the last name of AbramOFF name their son Jack. Funny, but simple, still the family of Jack Abramoff got offended and demanded an apology, and George Clooney's response, NO. It was just a joke and a harmless one at that and he didn't see any reason to apologize.
George Clooney is the perfect mix of class, charm, heart, and nerve. He seems to understand the power of celebrity and uses it responsibly and for good. If we could just somehow instill these values in Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Forget the cinema, stay home and watch Desperate Housewives!
There has been much said over the last couple of years about the decline in movie attendance. My own thoughts on the matter are if they made better movies more people would go and watch them, but I think it goes farther than that too. Television right now is better than it has ever been in my lifetime. I find myself all too often at home with a movie and deciding that I would rather watch a new episode of The Sopranos, House, or The Shield.
Recently at the movies we have seen The Pink Panther and Failure to Launch as box office successes. Now I realize I should hold my critiquing of these movies until after I have seen them, but I feel pretty safe in saying that the story, acting, and intangiable interest factor for these movies can not be as good as say The Sopranos. Television has become everything that once made movies the preferred form of entertainment. The quality of actors on television is prime cut, and the directors and writers of television seem to have more of a grasp on how to tell a story and keep the viewer entertained and well as keeping them on the edge of their seat.
What we have is the return of watercooler television. Many days I go to work or hang with friends and discuss the last episode of CSI, Sopranos, The Shield, or Prison Break. Consistently for the last couple of years Lost and Desperate Housewives have kept the audience so riveted that it has become all but impossible to avoid hearing what happened on the last episode. When was the last time a movie came out that everyone couldn't stop talking about, Titanic, The Matrix, Lord 0f the Rings. Television is starting to turn these shows out by the dozen.
Where have all the great iconic movie characters gone. It seems that all the best characters in cinema today where created in literature of some form originally. If your looking for great enigmatic, engaging characters these days your best bet to find them is to turn on your television. James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, Hugh Laurie as Gregory House, Michael Chiklis as Vic Mackey, William Peterson as Gil Grissom, all these actors were for the most part failed movies stars, at least in the sense that nobody in film wanted to take a chance on them now they are all emmy and/or golden globe winners. And there has been a lot of well known movie stars turning toward television as well, Steve Buscemi on The Sopranos, Glenn Close on The Shield, Gary Sinese on CSI:NY, here they have found different levels of success, Glenn Close was emmy and golden globe nominated. But the acting in television is as good and in many cases better than in cinema.
The acting is important but the writing is what is really setting television apart right now. The last couple of years has seen the birth of some great concepts in an attempt to lure audiences away from the stupid, mind-numbing, pointless reality television. 24 is a show done in real time(kind of anyway), Prison Break is a show center completely around the act that it's name implies. Someone threw out the cookie cutter that television shows used to be made from, well maybe they gave it to the movie industry instead.
I don't mean to say that there aren't any movies out there worth seeing, there are. I myself am looking forward to when King Kong comes out on DVD next week. I am looking very forward to X-Men 3, this summer, and I am on pins and needles for Spiderman 3 next summer. Our recent Oscar winner Crash was not just one of the best movies I saw last year, it is one of the best movies I ever saw. But there are fewer of these kinds of movies these days. All I am saying is if you want to make an investment in your entertainment forget a movie ticket or netflix, buy a TiVo.
Recently at the movies we have seen The Pink Panther and Failure to Launch as box office successes. Now I realize I should hold my critiquing of these movies until after I have seen them, but I feel pretty safe in saying that the story, acting, and intangiable interest factor for these movies can not be as good as say The Sopranos. Television has become everything that once made movies the preferred form of entertainment. The quality of actors on television is prime cut, and the directors and writers of television seem to have more of a grasp on how to tell a story and keep the viewer entertained and well as keeping them on the edge of their seat.
What we have is the return of watercooler television. Many days I go to work or hang with friends and discuss the last episode of CSI, Sopranos, The Shield, or Prison Break. Consistently for the last couple of years Lost and Desperate Housewives have kept the audience so riveted that it has become all but impossible to avoid hearing what happened on the last episode. When was the last time a movie came out that everyone couldn't stop talking about, Titanic, The Matrix, Lord 0f the Rings. Television is starting to turn these shows out by the dozen.
Where have all the great iconic movie characters gone. It seems that all the best characters in cinema today where created in literature of some form originally. If your looking for great enigmatic, engaging characters these days your best bet to find them is to turn on your television. James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, Hugh Laurie as Gregory House, Michael Chiklis as Vic Mackey, William Peterson as Gil Grissom, all these actors were for the most part failed movies stars, at least in the sense that nobody in film wanted to take a chance on them now they are all emmy and/or golden globe winners. And there has been a lot of well known movie stars turning toward television as well, Steve Buscemi on The Sopranos, Glenn Close on The Shield, Gary Sinese on CSI:NY, here they have found different levels of success, Glenn Close was emmy and golden globe nominated. But the acting in television is as good and in many cases better than in cinema.
The acting is important but the writing is what is really setting television apart right now. The last couple of years has seen the birth of some great concepts in an attempt to lure audiences away from the stupid, mind-numbing, pointless reality television. 24 is a show done in real time(kind of anyway), Prison Break is a show center completely around the act that it's name implies. Someone threw out the cookie cutter that television shows used to be made from, well maybe they gave it to the movie industry instead.
I don't mean to say that there aren't any movies out there worth seeing, there are. I myself am looking forward to when King Kong comes out on DVD next week. I am looking very forward to X-Men 3, this summer, and I am on pins and needles for Spiderman 3 next summer. Our recent Oscar winner Crash was not just one of the best movies I saw last year, it is one of the best movies I ever saw. But there are fewer of these kinds of movies these days. All I am saying is if you want to make an investment in your entertainment forget a movie ticket or netflix, buy a TiVo.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Do They Think We are Blind or Just Stupid?
I don't know how many of you are aware of it, but there is a new and horrible trend among DVDs. I have to wonder why I have not read about it yet and have only discovered it by accident. I can only believe that there has not be a public outcry because of it due only to the fact that most people have not even really noticed it yet, or if they have that they only thought it was an apparition that they wouldn't see duplicated in a long time, well I am here to tell you it is real and this is not a one time problem.
The last two DVDs I purchased were Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire and Batman Begins. Both of them shared and unexpected thing in common. The DVDs were bought the first week of availability and they both contained only the movie. No special features to speak of, no second disc, not even an option on the menu that said "Special Features". Neither disc possessed so much as a theatrical trailer or cast and crew. There was absolutely nothing but the movie.
I have watched over the years with disgust as movie companies kept putting out new editions of DVDs, "Special Editions", "Collector's Editions", "Platnium Editions", "Betcha don't have this one and will shell out thirty bucks Editions". Somehow or another always finding new footage that they can shove in there to make diehard fans shell out some more hard earned money. They will continue to do this until we say "Enough!".
I wouldn't have given my Batman Begins too much thought, but only a couple of weeks after I bought it, I was in Sam Goody's and saw another edition with a second disc full of special features. This is not years later, only weeks later. They are shortchanging the diehard, gotta-have-it-today fanatics, which is in essence their bread and butter. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. But we let them get away with it, why? Because we want everything they have to offer.
Now my Harry Potter DVD is still too new to actually know whether or not this trend will actually continue the way it has been, maybe they will actually wait a few months to put out the better edition. I watched Toy Story 2 get released three different times. First on it own, then as a "Collector's Edition" and then as a boxed set. Of course historically speaking Disney has been the greatest offender of making the most off of it's movies.
There is a possibility that for the moment this new trend is relegated to only one cinema. Both Batman and Harry Potter movie franchises are owned by Warner Bros. So maybe this is just there plot alone, but I am sure that the other cinemas are waiting on pins and needles to see if this works. And if people fall for it you can be sure that the others will take the opportunity to cash in. They are trying still to recover from low movie turnouts of the last few years. Of course they would seize on the this chance, instead of trying to make up lost revenue by doing something constructive like making better movies.
In the end, I guess they see us as nothing more than sheep and think we are willing to graze on any pasture they set us on. My way of making sure they don't win in this is to not by any other edition of a movie after I buy the first. I think most people feel this way too, but they will still put them out hoping to lure a few in. This new trend bothers me so bad I guess, because now my dollar truly buys less. I was always comfortable with knowing that there would be a newer edition with more features. I bought the last two Lord of the Rings movies with this knowledge and never thought twice about it. But now I am not even getting the bare minimum of features. Not even a trailer, you have to be kidding. What if they stopped serving happy meals with a toy? The only movies that are allowed to have no special features are bargain bin movies, but I am only paying six or seven bucks for them. Friday I dished out twenty bucks for a subpar Harry Potter movie with no other redeeming qualities. How come the only part of DVD technology that is not getting cheaper and better is the movies? That doesn't make any sense.
I am not asking them to stop with all the editions, I doubt that will ever happen, but I do ask that they either stop this despicable trend of offering less for the same price, or at least advertise it on the front of the case or display, if they had I wouldn't have bought it.
The last two DVDs I purchased were Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire and Batman Begins. Both of them shared and unexpected thing in common. The DVDs were bought the first week of availability and they both contained only the movie. No special features to speak of, no second disc, not even an option on the menu that said "Special Features". Neither disc possessed so much as a theatrical trailer or cast and crew. There was absolutely nothing but the movie.
I have watched over the years with disgust as movie companies kept putting out new editions of DVDs, "Special Editions", "Collector's Editions", "Platnium Editions", "Betcha don't have this one and will shell out thirty bucks Editions". Somehow or another always finding new footage that they can shove in there to make diehard fans shell out some more hard earned money. They will continue to do this until we say "Enough!".
I wouldn't have given my Batman Begins too much thought, but only a couple of weeks after I bought it, I was in Sam Goody's and saw another edition with a second disc full of special features. This is not years later, only weeks later. They are shortchanging the diehard, gotta-have-it-today fanatics, which is in essence their bread and butter. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. But we let them get away with it, why? Because we want everything they have to offer.
Now my Harry Potter DVD is still too new to actually know whether or not this trend will actually continue the way it has been, maybe they will actually wait a few months to put out the better edition. I watched Toy Story 2 get released three different times. First on it own, then as a "Collector's Edition" and then as a boxed set. Of course historically speaking Disney has been the greatest offender of making the most off of it's movies.
There is a possibility that for the moment this new trend is relegated to only one cinema. Both Batman and Harry Potter movie franchises are owned by Warner Bros. So maybe this is just there plot alone, but I am sure that the other cinemas are waiting on pins and needles to see if this works. And if people fall for it you can be sure that the others will take the opportunity to cash in. They are trying still to recover from low movie turnouts of the last few years. Of course they would seize on the this chance, instead of trying to make up lost revenue by doing something constructive like making better movies.
In the end, I guess they see us as nothing more than sheep and think we are willing to graze on any pasture they set us on. My way of making sure they don't win in this is to not by any other edition of a movie after I buy the first. I think most people feel this way too, but they will still put them out hoping to lure a few in. This new trend bothers me so bad I guess, because now my dollar truly buys less. I was always comfortable with knowing that there would be a newer edition with more features. I bought the last two Lord of the Rings movies with this knowledge and never thought twice about it. But now I am not even getting the bare minimum of features. Not even a trailer, you have to be kidding. What if they stopped serving happy meals with a toy? The only movies that are allowed to have no special features are bargain bin movies, but I am only paying six or seven bucks for them. Friday I dished out twenty bucks for a subpar Harry Potter movie with no other redeeming qualities. How come the only part of DVD technology that is not getting cheaper and better is the movies? That doesn't make any sense.
I am not asking them to stop with all the editions, I doubt that will ever happen, but I do ask that they either stop this despicable trend of offering less for the same price, or at least advertise it on the front of the case or display, if they had I wouldn't have bought it.
Harry Potter Broke My Heart
Over the weekend I bought and watched Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. From this point on BEWARE SPOILERS.
I have very mixed feelings about this movie. It was very fun to watch and over the top in a very good way. The special effects were amazing and pure eye candy. The cast, for the most part, was a stellar as always. New additions Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleason are of particular note. Much like anything done from a novel you have read, you enjoy getting to see what you have only pictured in your mind. And there is nothing quite like when they get something just as you have imagined through your minds eye, and there were quite a few of these occurences.
I am not going to blast the movie too hard. Probably not even as hard as it deserves. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is not only my favorite Harry Potter book, it is one of my favorite books period. It broke my heart to see how the story was picked over and torn apart. Every side story that made the book the crown jewel of the Harry Potter collection were missing here. The story of Rita Skeeter (who only had two speaking apperances in the movie), the story of Ludo Bagman(who wasn't even in the movie) and how he welched on a bet with Fred and George, and most disheartening of all no Dobby, Winky, or S.P.E.W. There was also only the briefest signs of Sirius Black who was the most main character missing from the story. I know that the book was very long and there was no way to get everything in the movie, but also given the time they put into changing the story so it would work without the house elves it seems they could have put them in the movie without actually adding any time. At two hours and thirty-nine minutes the movie is not short by any definition, and it is such a fast paced story that the time flies. Another hour would have gotten it right though, and that could have at least been part of the DVD release. The movie was so fast paced that it seemed to forget to explain things properly, I have read the book and could understand what was happening, but I can not imagine how someone who has not read the book could follow the movie, in fact I had to stop it twice and explain to my wife and stepdaughter what was going on. That is not just a bad adaptation, it is bad storytelling. I have one last bone to pick with this movie here. Up until this movie I have thought the cast for Harry Potter possibly the best book-to-movie cast ever. Until now everyone had looked like J.K. Rowling had described them, but they decided this time to fix what they believe in their minds to be her mistakes(I guess that is what they did). Mad-Eye Moody's magical eye is not a patch, it is an eye in the socket. Viktor Krum is tall, lanky, and when not on his broom clumsy, Harry describes him as "Duckfooted", in the movie we were treated to an undersized, muscular, graceful, cool, stud. Cedric Diggory is very athletic looking and has a friendly face, I guess it would be a judgement call on the face, but the movie Cedric was thin and wiry. Madam Maxine is in fact a foot or so taller than Hagrid in the book, but she is also as big around as Hagrid is, in the movie she was very, very thin. I applaud them on Rita Skeeter and Barty Crouch though, they were up to the high standards set in the previous Potter movie installments.
I realize most of this is a little nitpicky, but I am not judging them against any standard they hadn't previously set in the earlier movies and like I said there is a part of me that liked the movie. It was fun, but just as much fun as it is to see something when they get it right, it is equally as distressing to see something when they get it wrong. I am worried about and looking forward to the next film in equal measures. But there is no denying I am looking forward to the next book a million times more.
I have very mixed feelings about this movie. It was very fun to watch and over the top in a very good way. The special effects were amazing and pure eye candy. The cast, for the most part, was a stellar as always. New additions Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleason are of particular note. Much like anything done from a novel you have read, you enjoy getting to see what you have only pictured in your mind. And there is nothing quite like when they get something just as you have imagined through your minds eye, and there were quite a few of these occurences.
I am not going to blast the movie too hard. Probably not even as hard as it deserves. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is not only my favorite Harry Potter book, it is one of my favorite books period. It broke my heart to see how the story was picked over and torn apart. Every side story that made the book the crown jewel of the Harry Potter collection were missing here. The story of Rita Skeeter (who only had two speaking apperances in the movie), the story of Ludo Bagman(who wasn't even in the movie) and how he welched on a bet with Fred and George, and most disheartening of all no Dobby, Winky, or S.P.E.W. There was also only the briefest signs of Sirius Black who was the most main character missing from the story. I know that the book was very long and there was no way to get everything in the movie, but also given the time they put into changing the story so it would work without the house elves it seems they could have put them in the movie without actually adding any time. At two hours and thirty-nine minutes the movie is not short by any definition, and it is such a fast paced story that the time flies. Another hour would have gotten it right though, and that could have at least been part of the DVD release. The movie was so fast paced that it seemed to forget to explain things properly, I have read the book and could understand what was happening, but I can not imagine how someone who has not read the book could follow the movie, in fact I had to stop it twice and explain to my wife and stepdaughter what was going on. That is not just a bad adaptation, it is bad storytelling. I have one last bone to pick with this movie here. Up until this movie I have thought the cast for Harry Potter possibly the best book-to-movie cast ever. Until now everyone had looked like J.K. Rowling had described them, but they decided this time to fix what they believe in their minds to be her mistakes(I guess that is what they did). Mad-Eye Moody's magical eye is not a patch, it is an eye in the socket. Viktor Krum is tall, lanky, and when not on his broom clumsy, Harry describes him as "Duckfooted", in the movie we were treated to an undersized, muscular, graceful, cool, stud. Cedric Diggory is very athletic looking and has a friendly face, I guess it would be a judgement call on the face, but the movie Cedric was thin and wiry. Madam Maxine is in fact a foot or so taller than Hagrid in the book, but she is also as big around as Hagrid is, in the movie she was very, very thin. I applaud them on Rita Skeeter and Barty Crouch though, they were up to the high standards set in the previous Potter movie installments.
I realize most of this is a little nitpicky, but I am not judging them against any standard they hadn't previously set in the earlier movies and like I said there is a part of me that liked the movie. It was fun, but just as much fun as it is to see something when they get it right, it is equally as distressing to see something when they get it wrong. I am worried about and looking forward to the next film in equal measures. But there is no denying I am looking forward to the next book a million times more.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
What was everyone else watching?
Sunday night I was sitting at home watching the 78th Annual Academy Awards. Apparently, judging by the ratings, I was in the minority. Also, unbeknowist to me there was a second Oscar broadcast going on at the same time. I am not exactly sure what this second broadcast showed, but it couldn't have been good.
In this second broadcast, the show's host Jon Stewart, was unfunny, not getting any laughs. Also, he was overly political and used this forum to attack the Republican party and the current administration. Which is a blatant misuse of power in a night where we are suppose to be talking about movies. I am glad I didn't see this Stewart, it would have hurt me. I am a big fan of his and the Stewart that I had the pleasure of watching was the same Jon Stewart I have come to know and love from The Daily Show. He made a few political jokes, but like always his barrels were aimed squarely at both parties taking shots at Dick Cheney's shooting and then joking how voting for the Oscars was the only time liberals get to vote for a winner. The Stewart I didn't see offended many people and the audience was ready to attack him and banish him from the show. The Stewart I saw got lots of laughs and seemed to brighten up a rather dull show. Even causing the often hard to please Jack Nicholson to remark about the fantastic job Jon Stewart did. I can only imagine on the broadcast I didn't see that Jack Nicholson rushed after Jon Stewart wielding a golf club or axe right after the broadcast was over.
Another thing I must have missed was that different movies with similar themes were apparently up for Oscars at this second broadcast. Because during the second broadcast a subpar, unworthy film about racism in Los Angelos won the Oscar for best picture. Strangely enough this movie was called Crash. During the Oscar ceremony I saw a movie named Crash about racism in Los Angelos won the Best Picture Oscar. But this movie was a moving and powerful picture as worthy of an Oscar as any I have seen in recent years. I can't say I saw any of the other nominees, but I am sure that most if not all of them are fine pictures equally as worthy of an Oscar. Sometimes it is hard to chose between a Forest Gump, Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption, or a Shakespeare in Love or Saving Private Ryan, and the sad fact is someone has to lose. I must say I am a little touched though, I didn't realize the world cared so much for gay cowboys. But, in the Oscar broadcast I saw we applaud the winner and we applauded the losers, we knew that the vote could have gone the other way, and if it had we still would have applauded.
I am very glad that I didn't see this other show, it sounds like it was very disappointing. I think I will set my DVR next time though, so I can atleast see what I am missing. All I saw Sunday was a talented host doing what he does, doing what makes people love him, and alot of very good actors and movies win and lose awards, gracefully both ways.
Brief Oscar Thoughts:
In this second broadcast, the show's host Jon Stewart, was unfunny, not getting any laughs. Also, he was overly political and used this forum to attack the Republican party and the current administration. Which is a blatant misuse of power in a night where we are suppose to be talking about movies. I am glad I didn't see this Stewart, it would have hurt me. I am a big fan of his and the Stewart that I had the pleasure of watching was the same Jon Stewart I have come to know and love from The Daily Show. He made a few political jokes, but like always his barrels were aimed squarely at both parties taking shots at Dick Cheney's shooting and then joking how voting for the Oscars was the only time liberals get to vote for a winner. The Stewart I didn't see offended many people and the audience was ready to attack him and banish him from the show. The Stewart I saw got lots of laughs and seemed to brighten up a rather dull show. Even causing the often hard to please Jack Nicholson to remark about the fantastic job Jon Stewart did. I can only imagine on the broadcast I didn't see that Jack Nicholson rushed after Jon Stewart wielding a golf club or axe right after the broadcast was over.
Another thing I must have missed was that different movies with similar themes were apparently up for Oscars at this second broadcast. Because during the second broadcast a subpar, unworthy film about racism in Los Angelos won the Oscar for best picture. Strangely enough this movie was called Crash. During the Oscar ceremony I saw a movie named Crash about racism in Los Angelos won the Best Picture Oscar. But this movie was a moving and powerful picture as worthy of an Oscar as any I have seen in recent years. I can't say I saw any of the other nominees, but I am sure that most if not all of them are fine pictures equally as worthy of an Oscar. Sometimes it is hard to chose between a Forest Gump, Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption, or a Shakespeare in Love or Saving Private Ryan, and the sad fact is someone has to lose. I must say I am a little touched though, I didn't realize the world cared so much for gay cowboys. But, in the Oscar broadcast I saw we applaud the winner and we applauded the losers, we knew that the vote could have gone the other way, and if it had we still would have applauded.
I am very glad that I didn't see this other show, it sounds like it was very disappointing. I think I will set my DVR next time though, so I can atleast see what I am missing. All I saw Sunday was a talented host doing what he does, doing what makes people love him, and alot of very good actors and movies win and lose awards, gracefully both ways.
Brief Oscar Thoughts:
- I was happy to see Philip Seymour Hoffman win, but disappointed that Joaquin Phoenix couldn't have won. Even though I haven't seen either one of their nominated movies, I am long time fans of both.But both can't win, but Acamedy you are on notice Joaquin deserves an award, of course you have been on notice ever since he didn't win for Gladiator.
- Apparently Reese Witherspoon has grown as an actress in ways I haven't seen. Granted I don't watch alot of her movies. But I thought if you made a movie like Legally Blonde you gave up all future rights to an Oscar. I guess I wasn't too surprised by her win though, critics had been predicting it for weeks. I just don't know how she seemed to have a deadlock on the award, but I will reserve judgement for when I have actually seen Walk the Line. I was rooting for Felicity Huffman, I love my Desperate Housewives.
- "It's Hard out here for a Pimp" won best song. Seriously, WTF? This is the first rap song to ever be noimated for an Oscar. I am guessing that is why it won, so Oscar could catch up a little to mainstream America. But personally I thought the song and the performance of it at the oscars stunk, but to tell you the truth I wasn't really impressed with the others either.
- Award Count: Brokeback Mountain-4, Crash-3, Memoirs of a Geisha-3, King Kong-3. That strikes me as odd, Brokeback and Crash were the titans going into the Oscars, but Memoirs of a Geisha and King Kong weren't even nominated for any of the big Oscar's, but walked away with plenty of small ones.
- How did Cinderella Man get so overlooked as to only get two nominations and no wins. And when in the hell will they let Paul Giamanti win something, Sideways was a well recieved and loved movie last year largely overlooked and this year his performance in Cinderella Man earned him Supporting Actors nods everywhere, but no wins that I saw.
- Am I the only one who was not impressed by Lily Tomlin and Meryl Strepp. They are actors and they acted, big deal. It wasn't really that impressive. On the same note was Lauren Bacall nervous, she sure stumbled over her words alot.
- Am I the only one who doesn't like one single Robert Altman movie?
- Do you realize they could cut the Oscar's down to two hours and make people more interested if they stopped the clip montages and took out the awards that no one understands or likes, Film Editing, Foreign Language Film, Animated Short, Art Direction, Cinematography, Documentary Short, Sound Mixing. Here's a tip most people don't know what a Cienematographer actually does and people think Sound Mixing only occurs in movies like Jurassic Park. The only reason why people pay any attention to these awards are to see if their movie wins, so just hand out these awards early and tell us who one, or have a second Oscar broadcast on the Science Channel or Discovery Tech, called the Technical Oscars. The other awards give them out earlier we don't give a shit, we don't these people or movies are we aren't going to watch them. That might sound cruel, and I am sure they are talented and worked very hard, but so are some garbage men, but we don't give them awards on television and let them speak for two minutes. No one would care.
- Reese Witherspoon's acceptance speech seemed heartfelt and sincere and I am not complaining about that. But it was almost three and a half minutes long. When Crash won the Big One they spoke for ninety seconds and then was drowned out by music. That hardly seems fair. I know they were running long, but if you give Reese Witherspoon three minutes the biggest award of the night should have at least just as long.
- I hope, I hope, I hope Jon Stewart is back next year. I doubt he helped boost ratings in any demographic for the Oscars, in fact he probably hurts the older demographic. But hey we had to put up with Billy Crystal on the Oscar's for years because old people love him, well I think he is boring and I utterly hate his musical numbers. Now is the time for a smart comedian who can do current cutting edge humor with out the muscial numbers.
