The 75th Annual Academy Awards

In terms of the results happened more the way I wanted. Here's my take on the major categories:

Best Picture: Chicago deserved to win. Great movie (although NOT as good as Moulin Rouge). However, I think the top 5 should have been: Adaptation, Chicago, Far From Heaven, Frida, and The Hours. I think my favorite is Heaven, but Chicago should have won anyway.

Best Actor: NICOLAS CAGE SHOULD HAVE ONE!!! He did the most amazing, challenging performance I have EVER seen an actor do (except Ewan McGregor in M.R....I'm a fanatic). He was totally robbed, but then again I didn't expect him to win.

Best Actress: Victory for Nicole! Well-deserved-she was incredible in the Hours. Yet, my favorite was Julianne Moore for Heaven. Such an underrated movie in the academy's eyes, and she was unbelievable. But I'm really happy Nicole finally has an Oscar.

Supporting Actor: What can I say? Dennis Quaid is the winner hands down. But since he wasn't NOMINATED, Chris Cooper will have to do...actually he was really really good.

Supporting Actress: MERYL!! I LOVE YOU! I met her and she was incredibly sweet. Oh yeah, she did an amazing job in Adaptation. Catherine did extremely well too, though--just not quite the same.

PS~Steve Martin was hilarious, as usual. He was the same two years ago. It should just be all him, and maybe Billy Crystal too.

I watched this with a German girl while visiting the USA, only to find a German movie snatching away 'best foreign film' for the hands of the Dutch 'Zus en Zo'. The humiliation!

Steve Martin did an excellent job in his opening speech, and this is what I thought about the winners of the most important oscars:

Best Movie - Chicago. I'd rather had seen The Hours win here, but I can live with Chicago I guess... it's a bit of a simple movie but I somewhat enjoyed it, so why not.

Best Actor - Adrien Brody. Again, I can understand the Academy's choice, but my favorite would be Nicholas Cage here. Such a great performance in such a great film!

Best Supporting Actor - Chris Cooper. My choice as well. I have this thing going for Adaptation I guess...

Best Actress - Nicole Kidman. Definately can live with that.

Best Supporting Actress - Catharine Zeta-Jones. Ouch. Mistake of the year. Should've been Meryll Streep or Julianne Moore.

Best Director - Roman Polanski. I'm glad it wasn't Scorcese but my favorite would've been Almodovar for his Talk to Her, a great movie. I'm glad that won Best Screenplay.

One last thing: whatever you say about Bowling for Columbine, it's *not* a documentary. If you are willing to put half trues and whole lies in your film, it may be entertaining and all, a documentary it's not. So shame on YOU, Academy.

5/10.

I loved the awards. I taped it because I know that my favorite actress, Olivia de Havilland, was going to be there. I was touched when they gave a standing ovation. She is a true living legend and she will be on earth for a long time to come.

The actually ceremony has already been effectivly reported on by my esteemed colleagues below, so I will retrict this to why I watched.One of the previous reviewers obviously likes Olivia de Havilland but is wrong saying she is the only one still alive after 59 years.There was an actress, revealed in the group portrait, who won in the 1930's and is the oldest winning Oscar survivor but I cannot remember her name.For me this group portrait is more entertaining than listening to all and sundry saying "Thankyou" all evening.

My particular favourite is Jennifer Jones, who won best actress for "Song of Bernadette "(1943) in the 1944 ceremony.I have watched and own videos of every one of her movies from 1939-1974 and have taped most of her screened personal appearances since then.Film fans know she makes very rare public appearances so any glimpse is to be treasured.I have photos of her from age 2 until her present age 84 from her available biographies, memoirs of her and from contemporary magazines etc.I also make regular contributions to her tribute web site.Long may she live!!

This year's Academy Awards showed how politics are always in the mix, and I don't mean with America's current situation with Iraq. What I mean is that there seems to be an (unintentional?) fix with two particular movies of the evening- Chicago and Gangs of New York. Chicago went away with six, SIX Oscars, for being merely an over-rated re-tread of dumb, glitzy, Hollywood (Hollwood the key word) musicals, where there are occasionally catchy scenes- terribly brought down by the need for Richard Gere and John C. Reilly to try for big performances and can barely manage mediocre. Gangs of New York, on the other hand (a personal favorite from last year), which was the film with the second most amount of nominations (Chicago had 13, Gangs with 10), walked away with none, NONE. This isn't the first time this sort of syndrome has happened to a great movie (The Insider in 99, Psycho in 60, Clockwork Orange in 71), but this was a tad ridiculous.

Does the Academy feel a certain dis-affection towards the man, Martin Scorsese, and his little gem of a history lesson? I can respect that Roman Polanski got the Oscar for The Pianist, as it did deserve it in many respects (certainly the best European direction, and as the Palme D'Or at Cannes last year it was a clear choice over the numb flamboyancy of Rob Marshall's Chicago); however in all honesty, why give the Oscar to someone who isn't allowed in the country to receive it personally, when the guy who deserved it for best AMERICAN direction, anyway, looses? Is there a curse upon Scorsese that any year he makes a picture worthy of at least ONE Oscar, even outside of direction (i.e. Dante Ferreti's production design is some of the finest and most original ever, loosing to Chicago, which won basically for an adaptation of a design from the musical!). Only time will tell...

Having said that, I did enjoy some parts of the show when it wasn't filled with the usual fodder of montage-adulation, and the song in the background as the winner walking up being "all that jazz". Steve Martin did a respectable, pretty funny job, not to the absolute caliber of the first job, but with some fresh jabs at the industry (the two best being with Nicholson and Borgnine). Michael Moore getting a definitely deserved Oscar, said things in his speech that made some "boo", but really, it made a sense in its audacity. Claps go to Almodovar, Kidman, Cooper, Eminem (what was with the guy who presented, gold chains and all?), the late Conrad L. Hall, Brody (Nicholson and Day-Lewis were equally worthy), and for ol' Peter O'Toole...

And yet, outside of that, I felt a little uneasy watching the awards ceremony, as I probably do watching past ones. With this one though, I just got the feeling that there was a very slight rig in the works throughout. Of course I realize this is the name of the game on such a night, but the fact that most of the films that won for the headline factor of the film instead of the films themselves is eerie...then I remember that in the overall scheme of things in th e industry the Oscars count for very little. For example, years from now, or even now, how many people remember specific images and emotions and scenes in Ordinary People? Not too many, I can guess. But Raging Bull, "that's entertainment"!