Well... It's that time of the year again. I don't know what is going to happen with the Oscar show (they say they are putting together 2 versions, one with writers, one without).
However, here's the list.
My thoughts are not all that interesting this time around. I saw only 1 of the Best Picture nominees... and I didn't really like it. Juno is a good film, well written, well acted, competently directed... but I didn't like it. It is to amoral, to smarmy and it really depressed me. Is this what kids are like now? Or at least what they aspire to be? We're doomed...
That said, I have heard good things about No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood (both violent films dealing with undesirable characters). Atonment won the Golden Globe, for what it's worth.
And I guess that is indicative of the way I feel about the Oscars this year. I have seen maybe 6 or 7 of the films nominated (Go Ratatouille!) I saw none of the Best Actor performances, 1 or 2 of the others.
It seems that my taste and the Oscar nominators taste has parted ways. Although I did like Sicko, and kind of hope Moore wins for Best Documentary... and I'm certainly not liberal:)
I do plan to check out a couple nominees. There Will Be Blood interests me. So does Eastern Promises and In The Valley of Elah. Even The Assasination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford sounds intriguing (I am a sucker for westerns).
But even those are more because I want to see what the hype is about, not because they look so wonderful.
I think it is worth noting that none of the films nominated for the top 5 awards were big hits. Juno was a modest hit, and probably the most popular of the bunch. American Gangster was #1 it's opening week, but fell off after that (a great film by the way, especially if you like police procedurals).
In fact, I counted 9, maybe 10 films that were actually blockbusters among the whole slew of nominees.
Now, I will be the first to argue that just because something is popular doesn't mean it is good or noteworthy, or the best at it's craft. But I will say that it seems that people now equate "good, noteworthy, artistic, top of its craft" with unpopular.
So... I may watch the Oscars. But this may be the first year in quite a while that I don't. I have better things to do for 4 hours anyway...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
That's the way I felt about LAST year's Oscars - the first time I didn't watch in 9 years. This year the list intrigues me enough that I do want to watch, and host my annual party. (If you're out this way at the end of February...)
I recommend "No Country For Old Men" in an educational capacity. Its violence, mostly in the first half, and its bleak viewpoint on life make it a stretch to call it "entertainment", but as an exercise in suspense, it is the first film in years to really give me that nervous sinking feeling as the villain appears in a scene. You really just start to fear for everyone else who is on the scene the same time Bardem's character shows up.
And what's amazing is with how few ingredients the Coens achieve that suspense and horror. They have beautifully assigned just a few elements to the villain that send shivers the moment you see/hear those elements.
In a suspense capacity, it is as good as anything by Hitchcock or Shyamalan. And FAR less vulgar than the Coens' "Fargo".
"Michael Clayton" was an excellent legal thriller, but that one does come with more language. Tom Wilkinson was appropriately nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and Tilda Swinton for Sup. Actress.
Post a Comment