So the Oscar nominees came out and....who really gives a shit. Not to be rude, but the Oscars have been a sham for a long time now and with a few exceptions, haven't really given credit where credit is due. There are a lot of things that I could point out about previous Oscar contests that start a discussion or two, but let's focus on this year's nods shall we?
The only thing I really want to talk about is the Best Picture category. In previous years, the Best Picture allowed for five nominations, which is fine. This year, in an attempt to get people to care about the Oscars, the Academy has increased the number from five to ten! What do this mean to all of you? It means that there are five extra movies in that category that have absolutely no chance of winning, but are put there so you at home can say, "hey, I saw that movie"!
Many a year the winner of Best Picture has been something that a large portion of movie-goers hadn't seen....like "the English Patient". The year of my birth (1982) the winner was "Gandhi" and after that it was "Terms of Endearment". Not to knock on those films, but they weren't that entertaining. But these are the typical winners, big time dramas that deal with serious and real issues, and almost always real people.
This year the nominees are: "Avatar", "The Blind Side", "District 9", "An Education", "The Hurt Locker", "Inglourious Basterds", "Precious", "A Serious Man", "Up", and "Up in the Air".
First of all congratulations to "Up" for being only the 2nd animated movie in Oscar history to be nominated for Best Picture. Problem is they created a whole category so that they wouldn't have to do this, and therefor "Up" is throw-away nomination #1.
Now let's go to the meat of the non-nominations, which are "Avatar", "District 9", and "Inglourious Basterds". These films were fun and broke a lot of rules in film in a cool and interesting way. "Avatar" of course is the behemoth born of behemoth mother James Cameron that made 3D legitimate for years to come, but the story, acting, and pretty much everything else weren't any different from a normal summer blockbuster. "District 9" to me is the closest to an actual nominee out of these three with it's unique documentary film making style and incredibly lifelike and well acting aliens like we've never seen before. On top of that, it deals with real world issues that mirror those in parts of South Africa. Still, I think we're a bit of a ways off before a sci-fi movie gets the Best Picture. And then there is "Inglourious Basterds". Gratz to QT for the nomination both for the film and himself, although I doubt he was looking for it. This is a perfect example of a film wanting to be fun. I loved it, except that the "Tarantino-Table" conversations went on waaaaaaay too long. This has a snow cone's chance in hell of winning, but if Christopher Waltz doesn't win for Best Supporting Actor I'm going to f-ing knife someone!
Well, that's a lot of stuff right there, but the real reason I'm writing about this can be summed up in this question: "why isn't 'Star Trek' nominated....FOR ANYTHING!!" Seriously guys, of all the movies I've seen this past year "Star Trek" was the best! No question. It was well acted, great editing, direction, sound, writing, story, I mean ....WTF!?! If you're gonna put something like "Avatar", "District 9", or "Up" in there (and "Up" is by no means the best Pixar has done) you gotta have "Star Trek"!! Way better movie in my opinion than any of those (well, maybe not "District 9", it was really well done)! It's been a long time since I've seen a movie that performs so well on every level in the way that "Star Trek" did.
And by the way Academy, do you really think we don't know who will win Best Animated Feature when "Up" is nominated for Best Picture? Come on.
The only thing I really want to talk about is the Best Picture category. In previous years, the Best Picture allowed for five nominations, which is fine. This year, in an attempt to get people to care about the Oscars, the Academy has increased the number from five to ten! What do this mean to all of you? It means that there are five extra movies in that category that have absolutely no chance of winning, but are put there so you at home can say, "hey, I saw that movie"!
Many a year the winner of Best Picture has been something that a large portion of movie-goers hadn't seen....like "the English Patient". The year of my birth (1982) the winner was "Gandhi" and after that it was "Terms of Endearment". Not to knock on those films, but they weren't that entertaining. But these are the typical winners, big time dramas that deal with serious and real issues, and almost always real people.
This year the nominees are: "Avatar", "The Blind Side", "District 9", "An Education", "The Hurt Locker", "Inglourious Basterds", "Precious", "A Serious Man", "Up", and "Up in the Air".
First of all congratulations to "Up" for being only the 2nd animated movie in Oscar history to be nominated for Best Picture. Problem is they created a whole category so that they wouldn't have to do this, and therefor "Up" is throw-away nomination #1.
Now let's go to the meat of the non-nominations, which are "Avatar", "District 9", and "Inglourious Basterds". These films were fun and broke a lot of rules in film in a cool and interesting way. "Avatar" of course is the behemoth born of behemoth mother James Cameron that made 3D legitimate for years to come, but the story, acting, and pretty much everything else weren't any different from a normal summer blockbuster. "District 9" to me is the closest to an actual nominee out of these three with it's unique documentary film making style and incredibly lifelike and well acting aliens like we've never seen before. On top of that, it deals with real world issues that mirror those in parts of South Africa. Still, I think we're a bit of a ways off before a sci-fi movie gets the Best Picture. And then there is "Inglourious Basterds". Gratz to QT for the nomination both for the film and himself, although I doubt he was looking for it. This is a perfect example of a film wanting to be fun. I loved it, except that the "Tarantino-Table" conversations went on waaaaaaay too long. This has a snow cone's chance in hell of winning, but if Christopher Waltz doesn't win for Best Supporting Actor I'm going to f-ing knife someone!
Well, that's a lot of stuff right there, but the real reason I'm writing about this can be summed up in this question: "why isn't 'Star Trek' nominated....FOR ANYTHING!!" Seriously guys, of all the movies I've seen this past year "Star Trek" was the best! No question. It was well acted, great editing, direction, sound, writing, story, I mean ....WTF!?! If you're gonna put something like "Avatar", "District 9", or "Up" in there (and "Up" is by no means the best Pixar has done) you gotta have "Star Trek"!! Way better movie in my opinion than any of those (well, maybe not "District 9", it was really well done)! It's been a long time since I've seen a movie that performs so well on every level in the way that "Star Trek" did.
And by the way Academy, do you really think we don't know who will win Best Animated Feature when "Up" is nominated for Best Picture? Come on.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment