Reviewers call Oscars retro unfunny disaster

[kpkelley]

I wouldn't say it was bad. Stale, yes, but not bad.

I liked the Cirque de Soleil performance. I think the Oscars should have more performances from groups outside it's industry like this. It would certainly make the night more exciting. Most of those "films" they showed were entertaining for about thirty seconds.

[Wally Q]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

I wouldn't say it was bad. Stale, yes, but not bad.

I liked the Cirque de Soleil performance. I think the Oscars should have more performances from groups outside it's industry like this. It would certainly make the night more exciting. Most of those "films" they showed were entertaining for about thirty seconds.

I'm waiting for some kind of licensing deal for Cirque de Soleil to adapt that act into a larger show dedicated to the history of cinema with the greatest film themes ever composed. Hell, if they worked with Giacchino or Zimmer in adapting and orchestrating with a performance like they gave last night, it would be one of their greatest hits.

Pipe dream.

[BluBrown]

I didn't think it was terrible but it just seemed really boring and predictable. I'm sure a lot of the familiarity of it came from Crystal hosting. I like Billy but, it was just like his past years as host, so it has sort of lost its luster. My biggest peeve with the show was the way they seemed to keep reminding us why we like movies with all the lame montages and interviews....I KNOW WHY I LIKE FILM ALREADY! That and I can't get over the fact that Drive was seriously snubbed!

On a side note....I think Kristen Wiig could have great potential as a host.

[scorpion83]

Plummer winning the Oscar and the Cirque Du Soleil show were the best of the lot ! IMO .. the show on the whole was pretty okay .. compared to last year !

[willbfree]

The show does not need a host!

Deleting the host would mean seamlessly going from presenter to recipient to a new presenter to recipient. It would probably cut almost an hour from the show.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by willbfree

The show does not need a host!

Deleting the host would mean seamlessly going from presenter to recipient to a new presenter to recipient. It would probably cut almost an hour from the show.

Interesting...didn't this show or another award show try this not long ago? Seems like they did but maybe I'm wrong.

[retablo]

I didn't have a problem with the show itself, just most of the undeserving winners. But that's Oscar tradition.

[Battra92]

My wife wanted to watch the Oscars and we turned it off after about an hour. She was more interested in the dresses and stuff.

The only thing I really thought was kind of cool was Brad Pitt's shoutout to Ishiro Honda's War of the Gargantuas. My respect for BP went up a little there. I still haven't seen him in a movie I like but hey, he at least watches cool Japanese films.

What I was hoping for with The Artist, Hugo and Morris Lessmore would be a tribute to silent pictures. Perhaps a plea to fund Film Preservation or to encourage the public to check out the works of Buster Keaton, D.W. Griffith, Douglas Fairbanks, F. W. Murnau, Mary Pickford, Harold Lloyd, Lilian Gish, Victor Sjordstrom, Colleen Moore, Clara Bow etc.

I think Hollywood (and most of us) seem to only be focused on the now or at least the span of our own lives. I was hoping for at least a montage similar to the first few minutes of this:

100 Years At The Movies - YouTube

[Trekkie313]

I didn't find it funny, but it wasn't bad like the last two years were. Although I did yell at the Twilight movies being spliced into some of the higlight segments and at Hugo for winning visual effects.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

I didn't find it funny, but it wasn't bad like the last two years were. Although I did yell at the Twilight movies being spliced into some of the higlight segments and at Hugo for winning visual effects.

That was one of the few bets I won on our pool:
I assumed that the technicians would be forced into the definition question of "What IS 3-D?" (is it cinematography? Directorial choice? The "third" category of film vs. Color and B/W?), and deciding that native 3D in a movie was....special camera/visual effects created to augment the shot film.
If Hugo itself couldn't win Best Picture as a 3D movie, it could at least be recognized for having the best 3D effects of the year, which, indeed, it did.

(And if you're rushing to Andy Serkis's defense in Apes, that was a performance in mo-cap--The actual CGI itself wasn't really that good.)

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by EricJ

(And if you're rushing to Andy Serkis's defense in Apes, that was a performance in mo-cap--The actual CGI itself wasn't really that good.)

I would never... I was worrying that they might try to get him nominated for Best Supporting Actor for awhile though, he said so himself that he doesn't do anything more than what any other dedicated actor would do for mo-cap.

[Blu-Velvet]

And back to the Cinematography award, while I was hoping TREE OF LIFE would win, or possibly the great black-and-white of THE ARTIST to be part of its sweep, I can actually understand possible reasoning for giving it to HUGO. The award is actually labeled, as I recall, "Best ACHIEVEMENT in Cinematography" rather than simply "BEST Cinematography." Looking at it that way, at one of the few live-action films actually designed and photographed in 3-D (and very effective 3-D at that), HUGO actually deserves an award for overall Best Achievement in Cinematography, while TREE OF LIFE was prettiest and most spectacular camera composition and THE ARTIST was the most artful use of light and shadows. It would have been nice for an all-black-and-white film to win Best Cinematography for the first time since the 1960s had separate categories for black-and-white and color. (SCHINDLER'S LIST was of course shot in B&W but still used color dramatically).

[kernel_thai]

I only watched the last hour. I thought it was greatly improved over the previous year's last hour. Crystal was ok. Ur not gonna get edgy no matter who they get and it least Crystal seemed comfortable doing it. Im not really sure the show needs a host any more. The Oscar's being patterned on the variety show format is kinda showing it's age. After all there r no more variety shows.

I did like more use of video in the nominations. Didnt really care for the stars reflecting pieces tho. The best thing was they seemed to have addressed the detestable Best Actor/Actress shpiel where the previous winner pretends to say personal stuff about the nominees. The past few years were horrendous with Jeff Bridges attempt razzie material. This year both Portman and Firth handled it beautifully.

Overall I think the time of the show has passed. It's just not the big event it used to be. People see these stars every night now on E! or ET as well as the internet. People wont tune in to see them and since more and more people seem to feel the winners dont reflect popular opinion, it's hard to justify the time.

[ssjmichael]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

And back to the Cinematography award, while I was hoping TREE OF LIFE would win, or possibly the great black-and-white of THE ARTIST to be part of its sweep, I can actually understand possible reasoning for giving it to HUGO. The award is actually labeled, as I recall, "Best ACHIEVEMENT in Cinematography" rather than simply "BEST Cinematography." Looking at it that way, at one of the few live-action films actually designed and photographed in 3-D (and very effective 3-D at that), HUGO actually deserves an award for overall Best Achievement in Cinematography, while TREE OF LIFE was prettiest and most spectacular camera composition and THE ARTIST was the most artful use of light and shadows. It would have been nice for an all-black-and-white film to win Best Cinematography for the first time since the 1960s had separate categories for black-and-white and color. (SCHINDLER'S LIST was of course shot in B&W but still used color dramatically).

That's kind of stretching it. It's not like Tree of Life didn't have amazing camera work. It's not even close, Tree of Life's cinematography is by far one of the greatest achievements in the last 5 years or longer. It is an amazing visual treat, and some of the compositions used are masterpieces and unlike anything I've seen before. 3D really has nothing to do with this, that would be the Visual effects category if anything, and Hugo did win for that as well (also questionable imo).


This trailer alone shows enough reasons why it was robbed. Honestly we're all going to look back on Tree of Life as one of the best filmed movies in the last 20 years:

The Tree of Life - Trailer - YouTube

[Moviefan2k4]

The last Oscar telecast I watched was in 2009, when Hugh Jackman hosted it, and I turned the TV off about halfway through. I was never a rabid fan of the show, but at that point, I realized how ridiculous the ceremony has become. Movies that most people go to see (a.k.a. "blockbusters") are virtually ignored for most of the categories, with rare exceptions like "Titanic" or "Return of the King". 90% of the jokes are sophmoric and insulting, and celebrities reading from teleprompters is painfully obvious. The overall message of the Oscars seems to be "shameless self promotion 101", and I've had enough of it.

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

The last Oscar telecast I watched was in 2009, when Hugh Jackman hosted it, and I turned the TV off about halfway through. I was never a rabid fan of the show, but at that point, I realized how ridiculous the ceremony has become. Movies that most people go to see (a.k.a. "blockbusters") are virtually ignored for most of the categories, with rare exceptions like "Titanic" or "Return of the King". 90% of the jokes are sophmoric and insulting, and celebrities reading from teleprompters is painfully obvious. The overall message of the Oscars seems to be "shameless self promotion 101", and I've had enough of it.

You've hit the nail on the head here.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

I wouldn't say it was bad. Stale, yes, but not bad.

I liked the Cirque de Soleil performance. I think the Oscars should have more performances from groups outside it's industry like this. It would certainly make the night more exciting. Most of those "films" they showed were entertaining for about thirty seconds.

the Cirque performance and the 'focus group' sketch were the only thing good about the telecast - the rest was predictably and just blah...