The 80th Annual Academy Awards

"The 80th Annual Academy Awards" shall go down in history as the show that almost wasn't there and the year without any surprises. The evening was nothing too bad but it all was just so standard and also the winners themselves didn't really gave away any memorable speeches or moments.

While watching this I couldn't help wondering; How good would they show had been if there was still a writer's strike? Because of the writer's strike, this award show got almost narrowed done to an evening that would show montages from previous Academy Awards ceremonies and the winners being announced in between. It's obvious that they still implemented some of these montages in the actual show and to be honest, the montages were also the best moments during the evening. It showed all the previous movies that ever won for best picture and lots of winning actors and actresses as well as a couple of humorous montages such as one that paid homage to binoculars and one about waking up after having bad dreams.

When especially compared to other years, there were hardly any political jokes or statements being made. Not even a lot of Obama, Clinton or Bush references. Not by presenter Jon Stewart, nor by any of the award winners. Not even any Iraq references were being made, other then of course the nominated documentaries, focusing on Iraq.

Jon Stewart himself did a fair enough job as the evening's presenter. He had a couple of good fun moments but for most part of the evening he was just standing there filling up the gaps and announce the next categories. There was hardly any improvisation involved. Blame it on the writer's strike? Most likely yes, for also the award presenters themselves hardly said anything, funny, good or memorable.

All of the usual suspect were also present handing out the award, also no big surprises or anything memorable there. The only surprising thing perhaps there was Owen Wilson, who a couple of months ago attempted a suicide attempt. Guess he just wanted to show his face that he was still around and ready to make his Hollywood return. But also then again; what's the point of letting him present something if he isn't going to do anything funny? Basically all he did was entering the stage and said; the nominees are...and the winner is.

And as for the winners, well really were there any surprises? The only thing perhaps was Marion Cotillard wining best actress in a leading role for "La Môme". But other then that; "No Country for Old Men" winning best picture, the Coen brothers winning best director, Daniel Day-Lewis winning, Javier Bardem winning and so on. None of the categories provided any surprising winners. Besides "No Country for Old Men", the other big winner of the evening was "The Bourne Ultimatum" for winning three out of three Oscar', even though not for the most important categories obviously.

Some great filmmakers spend their entire directing career without winning an Oscar (Hithcock, Kubrick). I just can't help that I lost some of the respect I had for the Coen brothers after appearing on stage for each of their 3 wins, including best picture and best directing. I always thought that they were a couple of awesome young dogs who only made movies they really wanted to make but as it turns out they are pretty boring individuals. They acted like this was a normal every day for them and the Oscar was not a big thing for them.

Perhaps the nicest winners of the evening were Diablo Cody for winning for best original screenplay for "Juno", who was genuinely happy and emotional and Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová for winning best original song for "Once". It was nice that they won, since it was a simply made movie, made on a shoe-string budget and with a couple of camcorder but became an huge success nevertheless. It also was nice that they allowed Markéta Irglová back on the stage to make her acceptance speech, after being cut off by the music before. Perhaps a good idea to give EACH of the award winners the time to make an acceptance speech? I think it's quite disrespectful that in the case of three winners, only one is given the chance and time to make a speech. I mean, some of these people will probably never win an Oscar again. so please let them just enjoy this moment.

Interesting thing to notice was also the amount of international winners, from outside the English speaking countries. It shows that not the best movies and filmmakers are all come from Hollywood and film-making has become a real universal thing, perhaps more than ever before.

But really, do you always need to make a WW II to get nominated for best foreign movie? When is this going to change. It was nice for Austria to win their first ever Oscar for "Die Fälscher" but they really need to broaden their view on foreign films, since there are so many other nice films around, concentrating on totally different subjects.

Forgettable show, without any surprises, which perhaps is also a good thing since this doesn't annoy- or make anyone mad about things.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Yes, it's true! I, the ultimate cinephile, have only seen two nominated movies: "I'm Not There" and "Charlie Wilson's War". I've just been working so much that I haven't gotten to go to the movies much (and I frankly think that they should have nominated "Grindhouse" for at least something; I mean, they nominated f**king "Norbit" for an Oscar).

But anyway, on to the review. I really liked that during the pre-awards ceremony with the people arriving, two people made solid statements: Julie Christie wore an ACLU pin to call for the closure of Guantanamo, and Michael Moore apologized to the world for everything that the US has done. I wonder what would happen to anyone who attended the Oscars and called for continuation of the Guantanamo base.

When Jon Stewart hosted two years ago, I named him best host ever (at least during my lifetime). This year, his true highlight was noting that despite the lack of recognition for movies about Iraq, we have to stay the course and keep the movies in the theaters...otherwise the audience wins! In fact, Arianna Huffington noted that the Best Picture nominees all sound as though they allude to John McCain: "No Country for Old Men" (election season!), "There Will Be Blood" (his foreign policy), "Atonement" (how's he explain to his wife all this stuff about the lobbyist?), "Michael Clayton" (he needs a fixer), and "Juno"...well, let's keep an eye on Vicki Iseman.

The montages were about what I expected (why do they never show Kevin Kline?). I get the feeling that a lot of the young people watching this see the montages showing people from the days of yore and have no idea who any of them are. Heath Ledger was probably the most recognizable person in the "In Memoriam" montage.

But like I said earlier, I watched "The 80th Annual Academy Awards" completely numb to most of the nominees. I have no idea whether the winners deserved their wins or not; hell, I've never even heard of Marion Cotillard or Robert Boyle. Although you gotta admit, who would have guessed that Best Original Song would go to an Irish movie ("Once") over a Disney movie ("Enchanted")? The kind of people whom Stephen Colbert spoofs must have gotten angry about Best Documentary Feature going to one about Iraq (and Best Documentary Short Subject, if I remember right, went to a movie about a same-sex partnership). Of course, these sorts of individuals consider the Oscars an excuse for America-hating, Democrat-backing celebrities to promote the "gay agenda". In fact, Stephen Colbert should host the Oscars - in his right-wing commentator persona - and bash everyone for being the blame-America-first crowd (because let's face it: how many movies has Hollywood made saying anything good about the United States?).

All in all, it's neat to see Steve Carell, Cameron Diaz, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, Helen Mirren, Hilary Swank, Forest Whitaker and the rest doing their stuff. Even though the two movies that I saw didn't win anything, I still liked the broadcast. Any pet peeves? Well, when they showed Bob Clark in the deceased montage, I think that instead of "A Christmas Story" next to him, they should have shown "Porky's"; or maybe "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things".

Overall, I liked it.

I have been watching the Oscars on TV ever since I was a kid, and a lot has changed since then, some things for the better: the elimination of those ridiculous musical numbers, the pairing of two presenter celebs who were forced to exchange tepid, forced, non-witty repartee before finally reading the names of the nominees and announcing the winner, things like that - and one thing, unfortunately, has changed for the worst: the 30-second acceptance speech rule for the winners.

This single act has, in my opinion, ruined every award show that it's been used on in the past few years. The producers say it's a time constraint deal, that without it the winners would just drone on and on, actually getting to enjoy their moment of glory, and the show would run too long, costing the network more money. This excuse doesn't hold water though, because so much time is still wasted, what with all the special presentations, the singing of the nominated songs, blah blah blah. This valuable time could be used to allow the winners to talk, rather than having them up there either (a) rushing like maniacs to shut up before the clock ticks off their allotted seconds, or (b) refusing to kowtow and trying to actually say what they would like to say under the gun of the dreaded ORCHESTRA MUSIC starting to play after their 30 seconds and continuing to get louder and louder until they shut the $#!* up and get the hell off.

I feel that the producers of these shows have completely lost sight of what makes an award show good, what provides the actual GUTS of the show: it's the winners, getting to share with the audience how thrilled, moved, excited, etc., they are to be singled out for this honor. Depriving them by forcing them to speak for only 30 seconds is a crime, in my opinion. And to the people who complain that the show is too long, the speeches go on too long, I say they shouldn't be watching. The Oscars is a show for hardcore movie lovers, and to try to reduce it to a lowest-common-denominator presentation destroys the entire purpose of the show, strips it of its meaning and renders it useless. You might as well be watching a car commercial.

The host sucks, the show is boring and too long, the jokes are stale, the whole thing is a waste of time. they pick the movie that is gay, black, slave, disease, child and move on. weird stuff gets an extra gold star in Hollywood. yuck

"The 80th Annual Academy Awards" this time hosted by funny guy Jon Stewart who was doing the hosting duties for a second time. Clearly was a winner the presenters, and the script was great as Jon's jokes were very humorous it kept the audience at laughter all night as he hit on pop culture things ranging from politics, sex, making babies, and he even gave good praise by saying things about the current nominees. As always legendary Jack Nicholson had a front row seat, the evening was also well done in a traditional and classy way for the way the old clips and montage of flashbacks were used. As each category award was presented before it was handed out a vintage montage of past awards winners was shown from that particular category which was a good film history tribute and it educated many folks in a classy way. Most awards went as expected the favorite Daniel Day Lewis won best actor. And the best film of 2007 clearly got it's due as "No Country for Old Men" took in the best supporting actor nod for Javier Bardem and Joel and Ethan Coen won best director and the just mentioned title rightfully won best picture. Overall this Oscars was well done it was made watchable by Jon Stewart and his honest sharp wit humor it was well paced even though the show ran a little over, yet it was done very classy for the way it used the old montage clips of flashbacks to pay homage to past Oscar winners. I give a thumbs up for "The 80th Annual Academy Awards"