Post-Oscar Rant
I watched the entire Oscar telecast tonight, and while it was nice, nothing really struck me as awesome. Seriously, nothing did. I'm glad there wasn't one movie that dominated - when you get a TITANIC or a FORREST GUMP or a LORD OF THE RINGS involved it gets really, really boring - especially for the latter cuz I don't even think it's that great a movie series, beyond its basic technical aspects.
Then I was reading cinemagirl's post about how the Oscars mean less and less to her - and I agree. Back in my teens, when I first really watched these things, I thought they were the be-all and the end-all of the moviemaking world. As far as awards go, they are unparalleled - but just how important are these awards? A lot of the movies we saw mentioned tonight were great - but I'm sure that by the time I get around to seeing them on DVD, I'll think some of them are complete garbage.
I remember the year where everyone thought that "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was an amazing cinematic breakthrough. I didn't get it. It was beautiful, but it was boring as hell.
Now I present a list to you of all the Best Picture winners of the past few years (since I started watching the Oscars more intently) and share my gripes about them.
YEAR____________BEST PICTURE
1994 - Schindler's List
OK, I don't really have a problem with this movie. I haven't seen it in over a decade but I know it's quality. I still recall THE FUGITIVE, another of the nominees, to be a movie I liked more, but it's a totally different style.
1995 - Forrest Gump
No real complaints here, either. Forrest Gump was a masterful movie, but I only fully understood what it fully meant the second time around. Now I love the movie. But the best picture of the year? I don't think so. Tom Hanks deserved the best actor, no question, but THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION was a superior film. (Others would point out PULP FICTION, another nomineee that year, was also better, but I say nay nay - it's good, unique, and groundbreaking, but it still wasn't the best - or even Tarantino's best. That would be Resevoir Dogs, of a few years earlier.
1996 - Braveheart
This where I begin to have troubles. I didn't like the movie. In fact, for the most part, I can't stand historical epics, because they focus more on asthetics than they do on story. Braveheart's story was a basic premise that could've been told in about half an hour. Now, it's better than most of its genre, and there's plenty of memorable stuff, but it wasn't the best that year. Sadly, of the five pictures nominated, I didn't like any of them. APOLLO 13 was up that year as well, but it wasn't as awesome as I think it should've been...that's the only other one I thought deserved a chance.
1997 - The English Patient
I read this book a few years in university after the movie came out, and I still like neither. It's a long, slow, drawn out story I don't even care about. Maybe the more literatic sorts love it, but I certainly don't. Of the other nominees that year, I thought FARGO was a far superior - and a more interesting, quirky, and unique film. How that movie got overlooked for this cheesy, oversensitive, predictable drivel is beyond me. I have never liked that movie, I never will like that movie, and unlike the previous best picture winners I've listed, barely anyone remembers this movie, either.
1998 - Titanic
I said earlier that I hate when one movie sweeps nearly all the Oscars; in Titanic's year, it did just that. It made for a boring, predictable show - but let's face it, the movie IS excellent. Anyone who thinks it's a piece of crap is biased. I saw it BEFORE the hype machine went into overdrive, and before Celine Dion's voice annoyed the hell out of me by having her sing about her heart going on and on (and on and on and on). If you can separate the movie from all the extraneous, out-of-movie hype and kerfuffle, it really was the best that year. It gets a bad rap because of the hype - and it doesn't deserve to be the most profitable movie of all time (then again, the previous winner, STAR WARS, doesn't either, by a long shot) - but it was the best and most thorough, impressive, cinematic journey of that year.
1999 - Shakespeare in Love
This is another perfect example of a decent movie that got way overhyped based primarily on style and not substance - and now it's virtually disappeared from everyone's radar. I saw it, and while the idea of creating a story out of what caused Shakespeare's inspirations is interesting, it was not the best picture contender. I'm usually against period pieces - I'm biased, I admit it - but this movie didn't even have that interesting a story beyond its basic gimmick. That year I thought SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was a far better movie. It was the best depiction of war I'd see (or seen since), and unlike most war movies previous to it, it wasn't annoyingly overly patriotic. It was the first of a new wave of more personal war stories set amidst the great, horrific backdrop of a major war. That should have won, easily.
2000 - American Beauty
In my third year of university, one of my english teachers was obsessed with this movie. Like, seriously obsessed. I saw it, and I loved it. Now, quirky suburban tragedies like this have become the norm - usually in the indie film genre - but this one is done well. It's a movie right up my alley - it's something I'd want to write and direct. I've no problem with this one winning, because it was unique. It's nice when the smaller movies win the big prize on occasion, but only when they deserve it like this one.
2001 - Gladiator
Yikes, another year of garbage I didn't care for. While Ridley Scott deserved the best director award for Gladiator - technically it was beautiful and very well done - this was not a best picture. Not at all. The story was too basic, too primitive, and it was just plain boring. When big movies of this nature win JUST because of their epic scale and not because of their storytelling and acting, it really pisses me off. The bad thing is that in this year, I didn't think any of the other nominees should've won either.
2002 - A Beautiful Mind
While this movie is a bit drawn out and not the BEST, it certainly is well done from all aspects - creative and technical. I've no problems here with this one. Too bad it inflated Russel Crowe's ego to the size of Australia, though.
2003 - Chicago
Admittedly I've never seen this movie - but I don't care to, either. I'm not against musicals - I'm a big fan of Disney after all, I thought the Producers were excellent, and so forth - but this movie just stunk of style over substance, again. And no one even remembers it except when Queen Latifah (love her as I do) reminds us like she did tonight. Studios that this movie and Moulin Rouge a year previous would revitalize the musical industry in Hollywood; they may have, just barely. It's mostly forgettable though. Sadly, I didn't like the other nominees either, so I guess I'm stuck with this one.
2004 - Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
Can we talk about predictable AND not justified? Most people felt that since Peter Jackson did a great job recreating Middle Earth in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, he was "due" to get an Oscar this year once the third and final chapter of his masterpiece was released. Uh, no. I hate that line of thinking. The movies are to be looked at individually. While the movie deserved all the awards for its technical merits - including Jackson for director - I still don't think it was worhty of the best picture award. In fact, I found much of the movie boring and too "epic" for the sake of being so. Apart from the scenes with Frodo, Sam, and Golum, the movie was downright dreadful - even the epic battles didn't keep me into it, cuz they were just a lot of motion and noise with little heart beyond the idea that "good looking good guys like Legolas are fighting mean looking ugly bad guys". Sorry. The novels may be great but the movie doesn't make me want to read them. I much preferred the dark, dreary, character-driven MYSTIC RIVER. That's the one that should've won.
2005 - Million Dollar Baby
Clint Eastwood's second best picture in as many years was a let-down. As well done it was executed, it wasn't worth all the hype because it was so predictable. Girl wants to fight. Guy says no. Girl persists. Guy says no. Girl persists. Guy caves. Girl fights. Girl does well. Girl wins. Girl meets adversity. Girl fights in spirit. Guy feels sad and responsible. Movie over. BOOO. Anyone could've written that. It was acted well but the script was terrible - I saw the end coming before the movie ever began. His previous effort, MYSTIC RIVER, was much, much better. I hope that movie is remembered far better than this one. As for the other nominees this year, nothing stood out, so I guess this is the best of a blase bunch.
2006 - Crash
This ensemble movie is excellent because of how it blends so many tales seamlessly into one united movie with a common thread that we should all be aware of. It raised more questions than answers, and that's what I liked about it - it had a heart and it also made you think. Parts of it were predictable but overall I thought it was an excellent small-budget style movie that deserved the recognition it received.
2007 - The Departed
Congrats to Martin Scorcese for finally winning his best director award - he definitely deserved it. He definitely deserved it for this movie over his previous recent efforts, the decent but lengthy AVIATOR and the stylistic but ultimately lame GANGS OF NEW YORK. However, did this movie deserve the best picture this year? I ultimately can't decent, because I love THE DEPARTED a lot, just as I love the indie-nature of LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE. As you probably figured out by now, what I prefer in a movie over everything else is plot, storytelling, character, and emotion. Very rarely do you see it effectively in big-budget films. Both of these movies are excellent in their own right, so if either had won I'd be satisfied.
So what's up for 2008? Norbit vs. Reno 911!: Miami? Spider-Man 3 vs. Harry Potter? I can't wait.
Then I was reading cinemagirl's post about how the Oscars mean less and less to her - and I agree. Back in my teens, when I first really watched these things, I thought they were the be-all and the end-all of the moviemaking world. As far as awards go, they are unparalleled - but just how important are these awards? A lot of the movies we saw mentioned tonight were great - but I'm sure that by the time I get around to seeing them on DVD, I'll think some of them are complete garbage.
I remember the year where everyone thought that "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was an amazing cinematic breakthrough. I didn't get it. It was beautiful, but it was boring as hell.
Now I present a list to you of all the Best Picture winners of the past few years (since I started watching the Oscars more intently) and share my gripes about them.
YEAR____________BEST PICTURE
1994 - Schindler's List
OK, I don't really have a problem with this movie. I haven't seen it in over a decade but I know it's quality. I still recall THE FUGITIVE, another of the nominees, to be a movie I liked more, but it's a totally different style.
1995 - Forrest Gump
No real complaints here, either. Forrest Gump was a masterful movie, but I only fully understood what it fully meant the second time around. Now I love the movie. But the best picture of the year? I don't think so. Tom Hanks deserved the best actor, no question, but THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION was a superior film. (Others would point out PULP FICTION, another nomineee that year, was also better, but I say nay nay - it's good, unique, and groundbreaking, but it still wasn't the best - or even Tarantino's best. That would be Resevoir Dogs, of a few years earlier.
1996 - Braveheart
This where I begin to have troubles. I didn't like the movie. In fact, for the most part, I can't stand historical epics, because they focus more on asthetics than they do on story. Braveheart's story was a basic premise that could've been told in about half an hour. Now, it's better than most of its genre, and there's plenty of memorable stuff, but it wasn't the best that year. Sadly, of the five pictures nominated, I didn't like any of them. APOLLO 13 was up that year as well, but it wasn't as awesome as I think it should've been...that's the only other one I thought deserved a chance.
1997 - The English Patient
I read this book a few years in university after the movie came out, and I still like neither. It's a long, slow, drawn out story I don't even care about. Maybe the more literatic sorts love it, but I certainly don't. Of the other nominees that year, I thought FARGO was a far superior - and a more interesting, quirky, and unique film. How that movie got overlooked for this cheesy, oversensitive, predictable drivel is beyond me. I have never liked that movie, I never will like that movie, and unlike the previous best picture winners I've listed, barely anyone remembers this movie, either.
1998 - Titanic
I said earlier that I hate when one movie sweeps nearly all the Oscars; in Titanic's year, it did just that. It made for a boring, predictable show - but let's face it, the movie IS excellent. Anyone who thinks it's a piece of crap is biased. I saw it BEFORE the hype machine went into overdrive, and before Celine Dion's voice annoyed the hell out of me by having her sing about her heart going on and on (and on and on and on). If you can separate the movie from all the extraneous, out-of-movie hype and kerfuffle, it really was the best that year. It gets a bad rap because of the hype - and it doesn't deserve to be the most profitable movie of all time (then again, the previous winner, STAR WARS, doesn't either, by a long shot) - but it was the best and most thorough, impressive, cinematic journey of that year.
1999 - Shakespeare in Love
This is another perfect example of a decent movie that got way overhyped based primarily on style and not substance - and now it's virtually disappeared from everyone's radar. I saw it, and while the idea of creating a story out of what caused Shakespeare's inspirations is interesting, it was not the best picture contender. I'm usually against period pieces - I'm biased, I admit it - but this movie didn't even have that interesting a story beyond its basic gimmick. That year I thought SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was a far better movie. It was the best depiction of war I'd see (or seen since), and unlike most war movies previous to it, it wasn't annoyingly overly patriotic. It was the first of a new wave of more personal war stories set amidst the great, horrific backdrop of a major war. That should have won, easily.
2000 - American Beauty
In my third year of university, one of my english teachers was obsessed with this movie. Like, seriously obsessed. I saw it, and I loved it. Now, quirky suburban tragedies like this have become the norm - usually in the indie film genre - but this one is done well. It's a movie right up my alley - it's something I'd want to write and direct. I've no problem with this one winning, because it was unique. It's nice when the smaller movies win the big prize on occasion, but only when they deserve it like this one.
2001 - Gladiator
Yikes, another year of garbage I didn't care for. While Ridley Scott deserved the best director award for Gladiator - technically it was beautiful and very well done - this was not a best picture. Not at all. The story was too basic, too primitive, and it was just plain boring. When big movies of this nature win JUST because of their epic scale and not because of their storytelling and acting, it really pisses me off. The bad thing is that in this year, I didn't think any of the other nominees should've won either.
2002 - A Beautiful Mind
While this movie is a bit drawn out and not the BEST, it certainly is well done from all aspects - creative and technical. I've no problems here with this one. Too bad it inflated Russel Crowe's ego to the size of Australia, though.
2003 - Chicago
Admittedly I've never seen this movie - but I don't care to, either. I'm not against musicals - I'm a big fan of Disney after all, I thought the Producers were excellent, and so forth - but this movie just stunk of style over substance, again. And no one even remembers it except when Queen Latifah (love her as I do) reminds us like she did tonight. Studios that this movie and Moulin Rouge a year previous would revitalize the musical industry in Hollywood; they may have, just barely. It's mostly forgettable though. Sadly, I didn't like the other nominees either, so I guess I'm stuck with this one.
2004 - Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
Can we talk about predictable AND not justified? Most people felt that since Peter Jackson did a great job recreating Middle Earth in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, he was "due" to get an Oscar this year once the third and final chapter of his masterpiece was released. Uh, no. I hate that line of thinking. The movies are to be looked at individually. While the movie deserved all the awards for its technical merits - including Jackson for director - I still don't think it was worhty of the best picture award. In fact, I found much of the movie boring and too "epic" for the sake of being so. Apart from the scenes with Frodo, Sam, and Golum, the movie was downright dreadful - even the epic battles didn't keep me into it, cuz they were just a lot of motion and noise with little heart beyond the idea that "good looking good guys like Legolas are fighting mean looking ugly bad guys". Sorry. The novels may be great but the movie doesn't make me want to read them. I much preferred the dark, dreary, character-driven MYSTIC RIVER. That's the one that should've won.
2005 - Million Dollar Baby
Clint Eastwood's second best picture in as many years was a let-down. As well done it was executed, it wasn't worth all the hype because it was so predictable. Girl wants to fight. Guy says no. Girl persists. Guy says no. Girl persists. Guy caves. Girl fights. Girl does well. Girl wins. Girl meets adversity. Girl fights in spirit. Guy feels sad and responsible. Movie over. BOOO. Anyone could've written that. It was acted well but the script was terrible - I saw the end coming before the movie ever began. His previous effort, MYSTIC RIVER, was much, much better. I hope that movie is remembered far better than this one. As for the other nominees this year, nothing stood out, so I guess this is the best of a blase bunch.
2006 - Crash
This ensemble movie is excellent because of how it blends so many tales seamlessly into one united movie with a common thread that we should all be aware of. It raised more questions than answers, and that's what I liked about it - it had a heart and it also made you think. Parts of it were predictable but overall I thought it was an excellent small-budget style movie that deserved the recognition it received.
2007 - The Departed
Congrats to Martin Scorcese for finally winning his best director award - he definitely deserved it. He definitely deserved it for this movie over his previous recent efforts, the decent but lengthy AVIATOR and the stylistic but ultimately lame GANGS OF NEW YORK. However, did this movie deserve the best picture this year? I ultimately can't decent, because I love THE DEPARTED a lot, just as I love the indie-nature of LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE. As you probably figured out by now, what I prefer in a movie over everything else is plot, storytelling, character, and emotion. Very rarely do you see it effectively in big-budget films. Both of these movies are excellent in their own right, so if either had won I'd be satisfied.
So what's up for 2008? Norbit vs. Reno 911!: Miami? Spider-Man 3 vs. Harry Potter? I can't wait.