Oscar Wrap Up
Published February 28, 2005
I'm happy for Clint Eastwood (because I'm a big fan of his and Million Dollar Baby) but I was really pulling for Martin Scorsese to finally win a much-deserved Oscar. The Aviator is classic Hollywood epic filmmaking, so it's not surprising to me that it took home awards for Editing and Cinematography, but I was hoping it would win Best Picture and Director, too.
This may be stating the obvious, but the show moved at an absolute snail's pace. Although some awards were given out in the audience, and others were handed to winners already present on stage (thus eliminating the long walk to the podium), the broadcast still stretched past the 3 hour mark. I've got an idea to speed things up: ban Robin Williams from entering the building. Am I the only person who is tired of his "wired/hyper" act? He wastes precious time making lame "gay cartoon" jokes while presenting the Best Animated Film award. Hey, Robin: no one's laughing. You were presenting a 2nd tier award. That's a perfect time for the show to move quickly. Drop the schtick and keep things moving.
Does Beyonce Knowles own compromising photos of a high-ranking Hollywood executive? How else to explain her presence in 3 of the 5 Original Song performances? She had nothing to do with either the songs or the movies from which they came, yet there she was, changing costumes 3 times, oversinging each number. And there I was, subjected to watching reaction shots of a bored-looking Jay Z.
Kudos to Sean Penn for calling out Chris Rock. It added some much-needed fireworks to an otherwise boring telecast. I thought Rock was funny in spots, but he didn't make much of an impression on me as host. I found it especially lame that he choose to make fun of actors (Jude Law, Tobey Maguire, Colin Farrell) who weren't actually in attendance. His unfunny, cheesy banter with Adam Sandler was another time-waster.
For most of the show, I was racking my brain to remember who won the Oscar for Best Actress last year, then Charlize Theron appeared. And then I got mad. To think that this no-talent hack owns an Oscar for that amateurish piece of "acting" in Monster, and Marty is still empty-handed, boggles the mind. I hope Charlize was taping last night's show, because with any justice, that will be the last time she comes within sniffing distance of the Kodak Theatre.
Why does the "In Memoriam" montage always turn into an Applause-O-Meter based on recognition or popularity?
- Oscar Wrap Up
- Published: February 28, 2005
- Type:
- Section: Video
- Writer: Brian St. Brian
- Brian St. Brian's BC Writer page
- Brian St. Brian's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
One category gripe: why was Jamie Foxx nominated as "Best Supporting Actor" for Collateral?
I saw the movie this weekend, and there is nothing "supporting" about his role. The movie is ABOUT him, and he has the biggest role in it. His part is even bigger than the role of Tom Cruise, who I guess because of his name and status is considered the lead.
I suppose the studio offered Foxx's name for nomination in this category just to double his chances.
has anybody ever won for both best and supporting actor in the same year?
I don't think so, but check out the FAQ section on Oscar.com for lots of trivia.
If I remember correctly, when Foxx was walking up to accept best actor, one of the facts the announcer mentioned was that he was the first actor to be nominated for best actor and best supporting actor at the same Oscars.
Oh and Charlize Theron is not a no-talent hack.
I think Pacino was nominated twice in the same year (it may have been for both "Dick Tracy" and "Scent of a Woman") but I'm not sure.
Charlize Theron is famous for being pretty. She made a movie where she was ugly. Hollywood fell all over itself praising her "bravery" for tackling such a role.
Just because she gained weight and made herself ugly doesn't mean she can act.
No, she can act because she's extremely talented.
She can act? Really? Which one of her roles convinced you of that? Was it "2 Days in the Valley"? Or "The Devil's Advocate"?
Up yours you f*cking a*sehole. Charlize Therone is beautiful, and by far the best actress in Hollywood. Go such a lemon, you shitface!!!
ah, the South Africans are checking in.
I have no strong opinion about Charlize's acting either way, having not seen Monster (I am typically not drawn to ugly lesbian serial killer movies), but I do have a problem with the logic that compares a single best actress award to a director's body of work: there will always be these kinds of dichotomies where a career great has never won an award, which is based upon being the "best" at one place at one time. That's why they came up with the career awards - Hitchcock never won best director either.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/26113)
I prefer to see Scorsese win when he deserves it, which may never happen. He hasn't made a great film in a while now.
Personally, I think the best of the five nominated movies was Sideways -- but if that can't win then I'm pleased to see that Million Dollar Baby got it, and that Eastwood, Swank and Freeman were honored.