Member Center

So what did you think of the Oscars? | Sir Critic on Cinema
 

Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2007 > February > 26 > Entry

So what did you think of the Oscars?

By Eric Robinette | Monday, February 26, 2007, 01:51 AM

Here’s my review:

THE GOOD

The brilliantly funny Errol Morris opening, one of the best ever.

Marty Scorsese finally, FINALLY winning

The song performances.

Marty winning.

The costume design presentation with the “Devil Wears Prada” cast and Streep’s utterly priceless reaction shot.

Forest Whitaker’s heartfelt speech.

Marty winning.

The Best Director shtick with Coppola, Lucas and Spielberg.

Marty winning.

The presentation of the Best Pictures, with the nominees talking about the films over the clips. MUCH better than simply playing trailers, which they’ve done the past few years.

“The Departed,” my favorite film of the nominees winning, even though I was wrong about it.

And Marty winning too.

Ellen was quite fun as a host. It wasn’t her best gig - that’s still the post 9/11 Emmys - but she was better than Jon Stewart last year. I thought he was out of his element.

THE BAD

Playing clips of the nominated performances for all of 10-15 seconds. It gave us hardly any feel of why they were nominated.

The constant cutting off of the speakers, making the whole ceremony feel rushed, and yet the show still ended 45 minutes late.

“Children of Men” not winning cinematography.

My final predictions score: 12 out of 20 for 60 percent, which is below average for me. I did VERY well above the line, missing only the big one - Best Picture. Unfortunately, I choked on the techs. But I don’t feel so bad since Marty and “The Departed” won. Was a nice little gift to my spirits after my personal loss.

THE UGLY

Those MONOTONOUS montages, an error repeated from last year’s show. Most of them were totally unnecessary, and a few even weren’t very good. The producers always wonder why the show runs long, yet they never learn from their mistakes. Laura Ziskin, the producer, could have done better - but I still think the frequent former producer Gil Cates still should stay at home.

And finally …

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

One of the best scores written by honorary Oscar winner Ennio Morricone.

Overall, I enjoyed the night, but much more for who won than for the actual content, which left a great deal to be desired.

What did you think of the Oscar show?

Permalink | Comments (17) | Categories: Oscars Sunday Night

Comments

By MisterG

March 7, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

Just a quick add-on: I didn’t bother watching the Awards this year, preferring to keep tabs on the winners via the auto-updates on the IMDb. Second, I just caught “The Departed” at the 2d-run last night, and have to confess that I have no clue why it won Best Picture. I thought it was a fine picture, but hardly Oscar material. And how sad that Scorsese has to get his first win with a remake.

By ME

March 7, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

Wow. I realize that the show is long … But to not tune in because it doesn’t entertain you. You get to see what movies are out there or that you’ve missed. And to the two very idiotic comments in this blog. Get a life Dan. And really Bryan did you see any of the movies you criticize. And really you think everything is leftist … sounds like you are just narrowminded.

By dibbee

March 6, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

I have a rule that I follow now. Never watch the Academy Awards. It is just a very boring show. The awards are just in the technical category and why is this interesting? There are just 4 acting awards. If you want to watch a good movie awards show, watch the mtv movie awards. It is so much better and entertaining for the masses.

By Scott Elliott

February 27, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

I think Bryan has a point about the overt political statements that were part of the show. It was a bit over the top. Yet, I agree with SCRputt that Bryan is misreading the messages of some of the films. Little Miss Sunshine is a good example. Some of the content in the film could be shocking. (The dirty minded grandpa comes to mind.) And I suppose for that reason it’s not for everyone. Still the message of the film is quite clearly mocking of the sexualization of young girls through these appalling beauty contests. The strip tease scene was hilarious, shocking and it put a dagger in the heart of those who wish to objectify young girls by making plainly obvious what is really going on at these sorts of contests. That’s a message I suspect Bryan would probably condone if he thought about it. As for the Oscar show, all I can say is thank God for Tivo. I got bored and fell asleep at 11 p.m. but the next day my entire family could zip through the montages and boring parts to get to the winners, the dancers, humorous moments and other fun parts of the show.

By SRCputt

February 26, 2007 8:35 PM | Link to this

Dan, know your history. The Oscars started in 1927. How many black women have won best actress? One. How many black men have won best actor? I believe Forest Whitaker brings the total to four. More to the point, how many black people are running Hollywood film studios? That would be zero. So I’m not about to criticize the NAACP for having the Image Awards. And there is no way the Oscars should be whites only. Only an ignorant fool would make that claim.

By SRCputt

February 26, 2007 8:19 PM | Link to this

So 60 years later, Japanese are simply bad guys? Your attack on Letters of Iwo Jima is ridiculous in its simplicity. Clint Eastwood set out to examine how war effects the soldiers by making two movies about Iwo Jima. I’m not sure you noticed, but Flags of Our Fathers examined the American side, and Letters from Iwo Jima the Japanese side. Are you saying that no Japanese soldiers had feelings? Are you saying they are inhuman? Oh, and Clint Eastwood would find it hilarious you called him left wing, when his politics historically have been pretty centrist. As for Scorsese, one question: if you haven’t been following his career, how would you know if he’s made more memorable films than The Departed?

By SRCputt

February 26, 2007 8:08 PM | Link to this

As for Little Miss Sunshine, once again, Bryan, have you seen the film? Clearly the film criticizes how these child beauty pageants turn little girls into objects. They are not treated like girls. The striptease routine is satiric, taking the criticism to the next level.

By SRCputt

February 26, 2007 8:04 PM | Link to this

Now on to a few of Bryan’s specific points. You complain about Jackie Earle Haley’s nomination for Little Children because he portrays a pedophile. Have you seen the film? He’s not a hero. The film starts off showing him as somewhat sympathetic, then shows his behavior. He’s sad, he’s pathetic, he is not a hero. Are you saying art cannot examine how evil impulses turn a person into a waste of humanity? I actually think Little Children is a bit overrated, but Haley’s performance deserved the acclaim.

By SRCputt

February 26, 2007 7:55 PM | Link to this

Gee, Bryan, where do I start? You attack the Oscars for picking, as you say, obscure films. Yet you cite The Prestige, which grossed less than the Best Picture winner. Kind of makes my argument for me. Big hits are not necessarily the best pictures. They are the films that appeal to the most people. I, like many many people, bought a ticket for X Men 3. But like most of the people who saw that film, I didn’t see it as one of the five best of the year. Yet one of the best films to win last night, Pan’s Labyrinth, you probably see as obscure. It’s been a huge international hit, but only a modest one in this country because too many people won’t read subtitles. So they miss one of the greatest celebrations of children’s imagination ever. So are you really saying the Academy should only nominate the big hits? Did you want a best picture nod for A Night At The Museum?

By matt

February 26, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

Was I the only one watching an awards show an not a political discussion?

By Bryan Leed

February 26, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

I thought it was typical for the academy to mostly pick obscure films of perverted moral value which very few folks have seen, overall. One actor was nominated for portraying a pedophile! LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE has the young girl doing a strip tease act in her big talent contest scene. It was very disappointing that Clint Eastwood made LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA to show the bad guys point of view, as if the Americans were the bad guys, which is totally wrong, though a very common left wing, political viewpoint. Scorcese won, but to honor his career, as he has made much more memorable films than THE DEPARTED, (and I don’t follow Scorcese since he made the awful THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST 20 years ago, anyway). Al Gore got a bogus Oscar from his left wing movie buddies, and ditto the Best Song Oscar for the Melissa Etheridge tune for the Al Gore film. The whole night was a too much left wing back patting, proving how leftist and out of touch the elitist Hollywood celebrity industry is. THE PRESTIGE was the best film of 2006, in my opinion, and it barely got mentioned. The Oscars are consistently less interesting because the show is so self-serving and out of touch with the vast majority of moviegoers!

By Rob

February 26, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

The 5 minute “America through its movies” montage when they were already 6 minutes into overtime seemed the most egregious sin committed against running time. And what the heck was up with the presentation of the Best Picture award? You have a prompter Ms. Keaton, could you maybe string together a coherent sentence?

By Barb =:)

February 26, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this

I enjoyed Ellen as host, but she should have been on more and have less of the montages. I did like the writer montage though. Foreign languse one was way too long. The speeches were mostly boring, although Jennifer Hudson’s was good as well as Forest Whitaker. That is the one thing people say they hate the most about these shows … boring, written down and read speeches … yet that is what the winners keep doing. I’m glad these won: Scorsese, Mirren, Hudson Whitaker, Happy Feet. Fashions were okay, but a bit drab with little jewelry. I’d give the host a 7 (could have been higher had she been on more, but that wasn’t her fault) and the show itself a 5 out of 10. I was bored for the most part.

By ME

February 26, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this

Overall it was a pretty good show. Ellen did ok. She wasn’t her funniest and I would agree that the montages were long and not very good. Even the tribute to those we lost was lacking. Maybe they should have TCM do it next year. Now they know how to tribute! As for the winners. I was sad to see that Peter O’Toole didn’t win. I saw the real sadness in his face. I love Forest, but so many of our old true actors are ignored by the Academy … Marty … so glad to see Marty win. He was genuinely grateful and so were the rest of his pals. Nice of all three of them to give the award! The best of the best on stage. Probably the best thing they did outside the dancers and the screen. That was awesome. I always stay up to watch. There have been better Oscar nights, but at least Marty won! I think with all the surprises you did pretty well! Take a bow Sircritic.

By LARRY W. CHANEY

February 26, 2007 7:30 AM | Link to this

boaring

By dan

February 26, 2007 7:26 AM | Link to this

since the blacks have there own award show they shouldn’t be on this show or we should have an award show for whites since the blacks have their own award show.

By Ben

February 26, 2007 6:24 AM | Link to this

Eric, you pretty much nailed it on the good. You definitely nailed it on the ugly. Some of the montages were painful and long, and those things kept me from staying up to watch the final 30 minutes or so — you know, the part that people actually care about.
 

Things to do