The 82nd Annual Academy Awards

This year's Oscar show was not exactly inspired (with rather sparse input from hosts Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin) but quite tolerable altogether. As such there was little novelty (surprisingly, the individual presentation of the nominated songs was dropped but, then, there was still the usual ostentatious dance number which tried to 'illustrate' the nominated scores – the one for THE HURT LOCKER was particularly idiotic!), and the embarrassing display of reverence for the acting candidates (though this time it was restricted to the leading roles) from last year was reprised. Though appropriately featuring the accompaniment of The Beatles' track "In My Life" (beautifully played on guitar and sung by James Taylor), the "In Memoriam" section was not as moving as that of previous shows (due to the fact that, thankfully, no true cinema giant passed away during 2009); the individual tribute to John Hughes – by several of the (grown-up) actors he had honed – was an unexpected but pleasant surprise…as was the presence among the audience of Lauren Bacall and especially Roger Corman (recipients of an Honorary Oscar in a smaller-scale ceremony held back in November). The apologetic ode to Horror movies really came out of nowhere and, despite the obvious inclusion of clips from beloved classics and popular modern fare, mostly stuck out like a sore thumb! Again, none of the 'Thank You' speeches were particularly stirring – though Jeff Bridges dedicated his victory to his late parents, Mo'Nique acknowledged Hattie McDaniel (who had set a precedent with the first black win back in 1940), and costume designer Sandy Powell saluted those of her field typically involved in projects boasting contemporary settings (which she readily admitted were seldom recognized by the Academy). With respect to the results, apart from the AVATAR fiasco, the only real unforeseen victories were those of the Best Adapted Screenplay (won by PRECIOUS, complete with pretentious and baffling subtitle, rather than UP IN THE AIR) and Best Foreign-Language Film (Austrian Michael Haneke's highly-touted THE WHITE RIBBON missing out in favor of the Argentinian entry THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES). Typically, the night culminated with the Best Actor, Actress, Direction and Picture statuettes – all of which saw the winners venting their elation uninterrupted; though it was a given that Kathryn Bigelow would triumph (and receive a well-deserved standing ovation into the bargain) over her ex-husband James Cameron, thus awarding a woman director the first Oscar after 82 years, this became even more obvious when Barbra Streisand turned up to present that particular category. In the end, while hardly memorable, the show emerged (as ever) to be worth a watch for hardened movie-buffs.

"The 82nd Annual Academy Awards" wasn't one of the best Oscars, and still not one of the worst. However it was history making and a little different than those past as the hosting was a tag team duty(Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin)and it featured for the first time since 1943 ten films were nominated for best picture. And for the first time in history a female would win best director(Kathryn Bigelow)and her film "The Hurt Locker" would knock off the all time box office grossing king "Avatar" for best picture! And it was nice to see two well deserved overdue veterans win for best actor(Jeff Bridges) and best actress(Sandra Bullock).

Starting off with a bang the tag team of Martin and Baldwin kept the show funny with crude jokes and well written one liners. Proving they were the funniest men in show business especially Steve stood out. However their stage time seemed to take a backseat to presenters, music skits, and speeches. Many past award winners were presenters as always, somewhat surprising was a tribute to the late romantic comedy and teen coming of age director and writer John Hughes. Odd was a montage tribute to horror films? And as typical as this year with music played by James Taylor a homage montage was given to stars that past away why was Farrah Fawcett left out? And the awards given out were predictable no real surprises.

The strongest performance wins were in the best actress category sweetheart Sandra Bullock walked away for her caring sympathetic role in "The Blind Side" clearly the kind of roles that pleases voters. It's nice the down to earth Sandy can take home gold as her speech was emotional almost bringing tears. Most pleasing was seeing the hard working talented Jeff Bridges win best actor for "Crazy Heart". Jeff was long deserving of receiving an award. His acceptance speech was happy go lucky he's a good likable guy too nice pick by the academy. If you saw "Crazy Heart" his performance was talented and amazing for how his character battled pain and hardship on the way to redemption.

Next history was made Kathryn Bigelow was the first female ever to win best director as she won for her film "The Hurt Locker". And to add the icing on the cake "The Hurt Locker" won best picture defeating all time box office champ "Avatar" as Kathryn was two and zero against her ex husband James Cameron who directed "Avatar" and was up for best director. The academy liked a bomb stopping crew over blue aliens! Overall good Oscar show that could have been better it seemed a little rushed and really no surprises in the awards to predictable. It will be most remembered for Bigelow's history making win and well liked for Bullock and Bridges well long overdue deserved wins.

This has to have been the most boring Oscar show that I have ever seen and the least funny hosts that I can recall. It speaks volumes when Sandra Bullock's five minute acceptance speech got more laughs than everything before it. I hope that I am not becoming a stuff shirt but I don't recall finding hardly anything else funny and thought that the Jewish jokes were very poor taste to say the least.

I hope that, whoever presents the Oscars next year will make major changes next year, among them getting rid of the writers for this year's show and whoever thought of the improvisational dance and lack of set design that had no relation to the themes that were being played by the orchestra. Another major change would be a return to the solitary host but allow the host to improvise a little, albeit within some basic guidelines so, if the show does drag, at least it will not be as painfully boring. Some of the presenters should also be able to say non-scripted tidbits within the same guidelines. Even if many of the awards would be predictable, at least the element of surprise would be alive in the presentation.

My score - 3 - would have been lower without Sandra Bullock saving the day.

For me, "The 82nd Annual Academy Awards" will mostly remembered by because of two things; it was one of the ceremonies with the most predictable winners of all time and it was one of the worst Oscar shows ever televised.

I must say I'm really disappointed overall with the evening. I mean, this is the Oscar's, the biggest and most important movie award show of all time but however nothing about this evening felt big or important.

Because of the constant dropping number of viewers, the Academy once more decided on a different approach. This was most apparent with the fact that for the first time since 1944, 10 pictures got nominated for the best picture award. But also with the show itself they tried out some new things. Here is what they did; they got rid of of basically everything that was surrounding the actual handing out of the awards. No real musical intermezzo's and just one pathetic montage. Also the main host of the evening were given very little to do in between. They thought that in order to make the overall show better was by given it more pace, with basically trowing everything that made some the previous years shows so great to watch. It all felt extremely rushed, which also made it all very awkward and unpleasant to watch. In theory and on paper it of course all seemed like a good idea to get people involved who worked on faster paced and popular other award shows, also to connect more to the younger audiences. This only just seemed good in theory though.

To me it seemed like they had cut down the number of people being involved behind the screens of the show by halve. There is really no creativity with the show, also not with the writing. I'm sorry but the comical dialog for Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, the main presenters of the evening, were lame beyond the extreme. There also was nothing edgy or controversial about the whole evening because of the lack of any political jokes and statements made this year. It was a very safe show. I have also never seen so many things go wrong, directing-wise. I'm not even talking about the breaking down of the auto-cue at the beginning but more about the constant fact that you saw people who were working behind the scenes of the show walking around in basically every shot.

It also all really gave me the feeling that the show got put together by a bunch of people who aren't even too involved with movies and just don't care much about it. All they seemed interested in was to keep the show going, without any real respect to the movies of this year and that out of the past. Only one montage is far too less for the most important evening for movies and those who love movies. The montage was one that was supposed to pay homage to the horror genre but the montage, was like the entire evening, such a predictable and safe one. It was as if they said to a kid; find out what the 20 best known horror pictures are and the most iconic scenes within them. So all we have is the usual line-up, without the classic movies that truly influenced and changed the genre.

And well about the actual winners of the evening, it was nothing surprising. The acting categories all went to the winner that were predicted and expected. Best picture could had either gone to "Avatar" or the "The Hurt Locker" and best director to either James Cameron or his ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow but either way it would had gone, it wouldn't had been a big surprise for anyone. I don't make a too big deal out of it that Bigelow is the first female to have won for best director and I also don't exactly see this as a turning point in cinematic history. Regardless of sex, political views, sexual preference or ethnicity, the best one should always win and in my opinion the Oscar's have always done this throughout the years.

Of course there were still some positive things, such as the king of B-movies, Roger Corman, receiving a lifetime Academy Award (though this got also REALLY pushed to the background) and the whole tribute part to John Hughes. In my opinion Hughes also really earned this, since he was one of the few, if not only directors, who could connect so well to teenagers and their real struggles with his movies and stories. One of the greatest and most underrated directors out of modern movie history and now that he is gone you start to actually realize this all the more.

So next year different presenters, different writers, a different director and some more creativity, humor and show element please. This year was quite bad and uninteresting not because as much because of its predictable wins but more because of the way the entire evening got presented as a rushed, disrespectful and not enjoyable or entertaining evening for the the overall movie industry itself and more importantly the lovers of it.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Well, the world has changed. So did the people (specially the people). Not being American, i never shared the prime time family moment of watching the Oscars ceremony. I suppose that would have a symbolic impact in the lives of the Americans, at least until a couple decades ago.

Not today. I mean, people still value the prizes. The Oscar is still, like Fellini would put it, the highest prize in the mythology of cinema. People care about the prize, because it is invested of somewhat a mythical proportions. It's showbiz, and Hollywood has always known much about that, much about illusion. But today the Oscars-prizes, is a thing totally separated from the Oscars-ceremony. The first one still matters, despite its so celebrated unfairness, its so celebrated politics within, its so celebrated consideration that "the bigger the better" and that less risk in films equals higher entertainment and higher box office receipts. That's what ruled Citizen Kane or Taxi Driver out of the award. But hey, the thing is still hard-wired in the unconscious side of film goers. But not the ceremony. That one fades, increasingly. Television cannot be the only catalyzer of audiences, it just isn't possible, and the very idea of the gala, the party where famous people get together, with fancy dresses and fake smiles, and deliver and get awards, just isn't appealing anymore. Not as it used to be. So in a way, these Oscars TV shows do not work for us today for the same reason that, for instance, Elizabethan plays won't work in the same way: our minds are simply not immediately tuned to it, not anymore. We no longer immediately assume that a couple guys telling some jokes in front of lots of famous actors and directors is amusing. So, Unless the show is exceptionally well conceived, we just won't connect. That's why today we only care about The very best Elizabethan plays. The average and bad ones that were entertaining back than, simply aren't anymore. That's the thing with this ceremony.

This one was Not exceptionally well done, rather poor actually. So i didn't connect to it.

My opinion: 2/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com