Leave a comment

fairchilds March 9 2010, 00:36:47 UTC
WHERE WAS:
LEO
JACK
NICOLE
Marion
Brad
Angelina
Diane
etc. etc. etc.

It was like watching the Emmys or something! I know they're trying to commercialize the whole Oscars but gosh, fuck it, this is so insulting to the tradition and prestige of the Oscars.

And oh my god, it is so annoying having all these random irrelevant presenters, and have Cameron and Tina present the same awards over and over again.

I enjoyed Jon Stewart's hosting that year! He was hilarious. The past few years haven't been that great, although I really did like Hugh Jackman.

Reply

breakattiffanys March 9 2010, 06:44:25 UTC
Leo actually has a movies to promote so it's weird that he didn't show up. Jack Nicholson was probably busy watching the Lakers game (they still lost). I'm surprised Nicole wasn't there-- she's usually always there to present.

Jon Stewart gets so much crap cause he hosted the LOWEST RATED YEAR EVER (2007), which happens to be my favorite Oscar year of the decades cause the winners were all fucking amazing. Of course, the writer's strike canceled half the awards season so there was no momentum built for that show. I thought his 2005 show as great too. I loved the Best Actress fake attack ads Stephen Colbert narrated cause they were so Daily Show.

Reply

fairchilds March 9 2010, 07:15:28 UTC
but Jack is the Oscars' unofficial mascot!

my favorite year was 2005! I think it was because of Keira and Brokeback Mountain but Jon Stewart was great then too. Plus, the red carpet that year was FANTASTIC. That one show produced 3 iconic dresses- Hilary Swank's dark blue backless gown, Keira's wine colored Vera Wang, and Michelle Williams' gorgeous marigold Vera Wang.

2007 was fantastic too, omg. Marion Cotillard. Her speech moves me to tears every single time. She's actually the last person in the past few years that has had a truly iconic gown. The fish tail Jean Paul Gaultier one and last year's Dior couture gown.

Reply

breakattiffanys March 9 2010, 07:21:03 UTC
I think Hilary Swank was the year before BBM (it took place in 2005 but the films were from 2004). I didn't care for her winning that year but that was pretty great dress.


... )

Reply

heycurtis March 9 2010, 16:17:38 UTC
2007 = best year of film of the decade.

2002 was great, though the Academy largely voted wrong for most categories, and I think that this year had a few very strong contenders (overshadowed by the doubling of nominees) I think one can say that 2007 and 2009 were the two strongest years for film in the new millennium.

Reply

breakattiffanys March 9 2010, 17:35:01 UTC
2007 and 2009 were certainly the best Oscar years of the decade.

I didn't care for 2002's Oscars that much. Out of all the nominees, I really only like Gangs of New York.

Reply

heycurtis March 9 2010, 22:42:52 UTC
also, your comment about Precious being number two (completely plausible, I agree, though I would have to think it went to Avatar) cannot seem to explain Bullock still winning....

Reply

breakattiffanys March 10 2010, 00:22:46 UTC
Bullock = America's sweetheart. Sidibe = Complete unknown.

Reply

heycurtis March 10 2010, 03:19:48 UTC
but Precious beat out Up in the Air and much more deserving nominees for screenplay and was nominated for editing. I definitely agree with your observation, then, that it was second or third to win (especially with all the support behind it) but then how could Sandra beat Gabourey whom everyone loved. especially in such a stereotypical role that pretty much fights the message of Precious. that should have at least stolen votes from Bullock and even if Gabourey did not win, someone else should have.

just, imo.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up