NO ONE. NOT A SINGLE DAMN ONE OF THE 9 NOMINATED FILMS WILL BE HONORED BY THE ACADEMY THIS YEAR.
Just kidding, though to tell you the God's honest truth, none deserve to be singled out as the best of the year. Timing is everything and the Academy chose the wrong year to continue its silly policy
adopted last year to nominate as many as 10 films rather than the 5 that had normally been chosen
in previous years.
This rant isn't about the Academy's history of choosing an awful or mediocre film over a truly deserving one for its best film Oscar. You don't have the time and I don't feel like doing that much research to make the point. But here are a few examples: How Green Was My Valley (1941) over Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon; The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) over High Noon; Around the World in 80 Days (1956) over Giant and The King and I; Rocky (1976) over All the President's Men, Network and Taxi Driver; Chariots of Fire (1981) over Reds; and
Ghandi (1982) over Tootsie and E.T.
Rather this is about nominating movies that just aren't all that good. This year some of the nominated films are ok and many are moderatly entertaining. But GREAT? Nope. No way.
Not even close.
Of the 9 nominated films, it appears to be a 2-way race between THE ARTIST and THE HELP.
I enjoyed the former film, although the novelty of no dialogue wore off about half way thru and
were it not for the wonderful presence of Uggie the dog, I probably would have dozed off.
I'm glad I didn't because the ending is a knockout and almost worth sitting thru the boring sections of the film.
I don't want to sound racist, but I was completely underwhelmed by the screen adaptation of
the wildly successful novel which featured two wonderful performances by the probably Oscar winners this year for best actress and best supporting actress (Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer).
But THE HELP isn't a good movie by a long shot. Beyond Davis and Spencer, the rest of the
cast, especially the white actresses, are awful. The hands of a first time director are all over this
film, sad to say.
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is Woody Allen's most successful film and I loved the Paris location.
Beyond that I was bored to tears. Pure fluff. Will somebody please explain to me what is all the fuss over this movie.
I saw HUGO twice. I saw it the second time in 3D at the urging of a dear friend who said the
3D technique truly enhances the film. Not for me it didn't. I was just as bored (at the sloooow
sections of the film) the second time around as I was the first. HUGO has moments of magic
and the ending is spectacular and brought tears to my eyes. But this is not one of Marty
Scorsese's best films by a longshot. I wanted to embrace HUGO but I didn't. It does feature
a beautiful musical score and I hope it wins the Oscar in this category. It is also deserving of the
Oscar in many of the other (mostly technical) categories it was nominated in but it is not worthy
of a best picture Oscar. Sorry.
Nor is Steven Spielberg's WAR HORSE which I also saw twice. I'm a sucker for any movie
about a horse (National Velvet and The Black Stallion are among my all-time favs) and Spielberg
knows how to make grand entertainments and WAR HORSE is no exception, but it is not a
great film and it features an overblown musical score by John Williams. Just awful. But I cried throughout the film and was sobbing at the end (a happy one, kana hora).
THE DESCENDANTS features an ok story and excellent ensemble acting but did I find it
memorable and compelling in any way? Nope. Ditto MONEYBALL.
Two of the worst movies of the year were nominated for the Oscar. Terrence Malick's TREE OF LIFE was pretentious, overbearing, silly and worst of all, boring as shit. This was a film
that desperately needed a screenplay for the second half of the film, something that was as
compelling as the first half which featured some brilliant acting by Brad Pitt and
the young boys who portrayed his sons. I couldn't wait for it to end.
The other truly awful nominated film is EXTREMELY LOUD (Irritating) and INCREDIBLY
CLOSE (Unbelievable). Quite simply, it stinks. I wanted to smack silly the young boy who stars in the film and is in every implausible, ridiculous scene (Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock are ok
in their mostly supporting roles as the little prick's mom and dad.). Everything about this film
is 'off'. I hated it.
I'm sorry BRIDESMAIDS didn't get a best pic nomination. It's a more successful film than any of the 9 that were nominated. Alas, it didn't make the cut.
The best picture of 2011 (American made) that I neglected to have on my top 10 list (an oversight) and also neglected by the Academy was HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY
HALLOWS PT 2. I climbed aboard the Harry Potter wagon late in the game and watched most of the series on DVD except for the final episode which I saw on the big screen and loved.
Exceptional screenplay - a wonderful adaptation of the novel - a marvelous, brilliant cast,
spectacular visuals and special effects and satisfying in every other respect, this film not only deserved to be nominated, but it truly worthy of the Oscar.
Shame on the Academy...again.
No comments:
Post a Comment