Well, I've seen enough of this year's Oscars, which I finally turned-off. I've never done that before, but seriously, this is the WORST Oscars show ever.

This year's theme is obviously "aren't we wonderful for the way we constantly change the world for the better?" I mean George Clooney's speech wasn't *competely narcissistic* at all was it?

And what was the point of those retrspective genre montages? How were they relevent? I think they were just there to pad-out the show.

And what depressed me most was that the most talented people I saw all evening were in the "In Memorium" montage!

It might have made this evening more tollerable if John Williams won another (completely deserved) Oscar. Instead it went to...oh, y'know, I already forgot! (Must have been some score tho...)

But I've saved the worst for last -- Jon Stewart. I never thought anyone could make me miss Chris Rock. Stewart's delivery was painfully forced, his jokes stillborn. I mean Ben Stiller seemed funny compared to him (tho Stiller's schtick was pretty-much ripped-off from Ed begley Jr's. "Invsible Man" vignette from Amazon Women on the Moon).

So...I don't know who's going to win best picture / director, tho its not hard to guess. I'm sure Ang Lee will thank the academy for honoring his "important" film (when he should be apologizing for Hulk).

Well...at least Wallace & Grommit and March of the Penguins won (and they were better than any of the "best" picture nominees).

Good-night...


Paul

I'm not surprised that the show turned out to be as narcissistic and self-indulgent as the list of film's nominated were.

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the show overall...I guess because my expectations were so low, I didn't have a huge problem with this ceremony. Still I was entertained and frankly, I liked Jon Stewart. I am not a huge fan and was prepared for a night of snarky remarks but I really felt he brought a touch of class and a few keen remarks -- especially when compared to past hosts. Of course there were some rock-bottom moments, but that's a given...it's the Oscars!

Very few political jokes, surprisingly -- outside of one requisite Cheney joke there wasn't anything at all in the controversy department. Score a major plus there. Stewart was stilted and a few of his jokes bombed but, actually, I thought he was a LOT better than Rock, who was shrill and perhaps even more stilted. His comment about Scorsese not winning an Oscar and that hip-hop group (!) winning for Original Song was very observant...I also liked his comment about the "interpretive dance" that embarrasingly turned up in that Original Song performance (easily the biggest bomb of the entire night). He was stiff to start but warmed up as the night moved along. I'd even invite him back!

The only real sour awards recipient was George Clooney. I figured George was full of himself but he came off like a total ass, making a sarcastic comment like "this is the only award I'm gonna get tonight" when he won his Supporting Actor....for a guy who came from the FACTS OF LIFE to even make a joke about not being honored enough was really difficult to take.

Too many montages and Paul, you're dead right, they WERE overly self-congratulatory. On the other hand there was also a real push in the montages to sell the cinematic experience -- over and over we heard about how DVD and even "portable DVD" cannot compare to going to a theater (I felt like saying, yeah, except when the focus is off and people talk through the whole movie right in front of you). Clearly that's a problem for them, worrying about declining attendance and how well the home-theater experience is fairing instead.

And what was with ending the Obituaries clip reel with RICHARD PRYOR...I have no problem whatsoever with showing him during the reel (obviously), but ENDING the montage with him...with a clip from BREWSTER'S MILLIONS? What an insult to people who left far more of a cinematic legacy like Robert Wise, even Brock Peters!

Otherwise, the whole show was OK and a big improvement on last year. I would have liked to have seen John Williams take home the Oscar but frankly neither of those two scores were his best...it just figures they gave it to Brokeback in that department and not GEISHA, which still (however inexplicably) won all these technical awards.

Best of all, though, seeing the BROKEBACK hype get derailed was a pleasure...watching CRASH score a major upset was great to see (perhaps one of THE upsets in Oscar history, given the hype of Brokeback Mountain) -- Nicholson looked like "yeah, I DID read that right!" after he announced the winner to what sounded like a shocked crowd.

That moment alone was well worth the wait, IMHO.

PS -- I noticed Ang Lee was sour grapes after the ceremony, noting "I don't know why they didn't go for it" in response to someone asking him why it didn't win Best Picture. Hey Ang, maybe your movie...WASN'T AS GOOD!

One last gripe -- WHAT was the deal with playing the music under every single recipient from the second they took the stage? I know they are trying to shorten this show as much as possible, but it was downright distracting.

I noticed they stopped in the last hour -- must have gotten so many complaints that somebody ordered the kibosh to it.

How is it logically possible for the best film award to be given to CRASH and then best director given to Lee for a separate film? Imean, CRASH was the best film, right? It's just anotehr example of why these awards shows are pure trash.

Williams lost to whom? For what??? Why???? Because it didn't get best picture?? What a bunch of rubbish.

Well I would have to agree Andy, there were less political jokes than I expected. And in retropect I agree, Chris Rock was incontrovertably abominable. But I didn't laugh at a single thing Stewart had to say. And beyond that it was just a boring ceremony. Few of the winners deserved their awards. As much as I disliked War of the Worlds its effects were unassailable. Yet they gave the award to King Kong, who's effects -- while complex and detailed -- looked hopelessly fake!

AndyDursin wrote:over and over we heard about how DVD and even "portable DVD" cannot compare to going to a theater (I felt like saying, yeah, except when the focus is off and people talk through the whole movie right in front of you). Clearly that's a problem for them, worrying about declining attendance and how well the home-theater experience is fairing instead.

Well my advice to them would be to start making BETTER MOVIES! Rightly or wrongly, audiences in America aren't interested in "heroic" suicide bombers or female boxers who get euthanized. But I think George Cloony voiced the attitude of most people in that business, in expressing their agenda to re-shape the attitudes of the great unwashed. "Big Brother is entertaining you" -- and doing a lousy job!:mrgreen:

What's also funny to me is that Clooney invoked Hollywood's early support for civil rights -- likely unaware that one of the first Hollywood celebrities to march with Dr. Martin Luther King was none other than Charlton Heston! (And speaking of Heston, I didn't think Stewart's snide joke about the actor was particularly tasteful when Heston is wasting away from Altzheimer's disease.)


And you're right, this appeal to sell "the cinematic experience" is born of fear. The whole structure of exhibition is changing -- and Hollywood is scared. More and more TV shows are offering production calibre which is commensurate with movies. There was an era when William Wyler didn't have to worry about Burn & Allen keeping viewers from coming to see Ben-Hur. But that was a while ago. Today your average episode of Battlestar Galatica is arguably more "cinematic" than any of the recent Star Trek films.

And with Blue-Ray/HD-DVD just around the corner, the "cinematic experience" can be perfectly replicated -- and even improved upon -- in one's own living room. And if more filmmakers follow Steven Soderberg's example of releasing films in the theatre and on DVD simultaniously, the "cinema experience" is in real danger.

Hollywood's supremacy as a production center is also ebbing. My ex-girlfriend (who worked on War of the Worlds and Munich) tells me there's increasing air of nervousness in LA, with more production being done overseas, and the ability to render complex effects (and even big sets) on a $1800 Macintosh.


In any case, I was quite ecstatic Wallace and Grommitt won. But that was a fleeting moment's pleasure in an otherwise barren evening -- that and the glowing allure of Charleze Theron. But even Charlize was not enough to keep me interested. As I said, I turned it off before the end. What won Best Cinematography by the way? Brokeback Mountain's "Wyoming" scenery (which was shot in Canada) I suspect?.

AndyDursin wrote: Nicholson looked like "yeah, I DID read that right!" after he announced the winner to what sounded like a shocked crowd.

Darn...now THAT would have been worth staying up for! Oh well.

In any case, I always wonder every year what next year's pickings will be like. But for the last 3-4 years I've thought "surely they can't get any worse!". Yet they have.

I wish I'd watched the new Sherlock Holmes adventure with Rupert Everett on Masterpiece Theatre instead...


Paul

Wow. People still actually watch this garbage?

Hello All,

What can you say about the Oscars? It's the show that many people (not everyone) love to hate.

The ratings were down 10% over last year, but then again almost all the "event" shows on TV are down in general. I think one factor is that the movies that were up for Oscars were not the kind of movies that draw big crowds. In my opinion, CAPOTE is a brilliant film, but I think I was one of the few people in Canada who even saw it.

Andy, we finally don't agree on something...Jon Stewart. He had his funny moments, I'll give him that, but for my tastes he brought way too much political humor to the event. I like someone decidedly more show biz like Billy Crystal (just seeing Crystal in the opening made me laugh out loud).

I can't believe the Lauren Bacall moment. First off, they should have had another star come out with her so she would have had less to say (she got confused and stumbled over some lines. Hey, let's not forget that she is in her 80s.) What made me really upset was there was no standing O for the former Mrs. Bogart!!!!! Bacall was a star, a BIG star long before most the people at the Kodak Theater were even born. Makes you wonder who they are standing up for these days? I know that rap group had me standing...for a quick trip to the bathroom.

OK, you know how they changed some rules in Hockey to make the game better? Here's my rule change for the Oscars. NO MORE "THANK YOU" SPEECHES. The new rule is you can't thank anyone except your mom and dad and wife (or husband). That's it. Viewer's are waiting to hear their favorite stars say something clever, or funny or witty or insightful and then get off. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but in the last few years I have actually heard stars thanking their LAWYERS!!!!!!!!

At least they moved Mickey Rooney near the front. Last year I think he was in the back row. You have to pay your respect to those who went before (and in many cases helped build Hollywood).

Mike

Michael Ryan wrote:At least they moved Mickey Rooney near the front. Last year I think he was in the back row. You have to pay your respect to those who went before (and in many cases helped build Hollywood).

Mike, did you think the same thing I did, and that's when the 360 Mafia or whatever they're called did their "Pimp" song, that Mickey Rooney and other Hollywood legends were sitting in the audience having to endure that?

Actually I agree with you all the way around. I noticed Lauren Bacall's tepid applause, no standing O, then she stumbled her way through that speech...yikes that was painful. And ditto on the thank yous -- do I need to hear agents and lawyers being thanked?

And what was with the "thank you to Sony for being so BRAVE to make Memoirs of a Geisha" (among similar sentiments for other movies). What a joke.

Jon Stewart -- I guess I was just prepared to hate him, especially knowing his political bent and how much "political humor" he was supposed to bring into the show. There were still a few too many ethnic Jewish references (and who wrote that insulting joke about Angelina Jolie adopting kids? There were more than a few groans, and not any audible laughs, on that one) but I suppose my expectations were so low I didn't mind it.

I would still take Steve Martin, Billy Crystal any day....but even they couldn't touch Carson or Bob Hope.