The Oscars are kind of silly, aren’t they? It’s one big popularity contest devised by the popular. They are filmmakers congratulating themselves for making films.

Okay, I’m not actually that cynical about this subject, but I want to make it clear that I can understand the cynicism. It’s mostly fair. But the fact remains that the Oscars matter, and they will probably continue to matter for a long time. Any association with an Oscar, whether a win or just a nomination, will benefit a filmmaker’s career. And we all know that actors get more and better work after Oscar recognition. This is just the way the industry works.

So, despite myself, I cared. I wasn’t going to watch any of it last night, but then I did. In fact, I never have, but I decided at one point that I might as well, as deeply entrenched as I am in everything film. I started to watch in time to see the Best Male Actor, Female Actor, Directing, and Picture categories. My thoughts follow.

In general, the parts of the event that I saw were warm, classy, and mostly entertaining. There were no Sean Penn moments or even overtly stupid nominations. The whole thing felt like what you sort of hope the Oscars will feel like. Maybe a little too dramatic for what it is, but it’s fun to get caught up in the moment. I was also very gratified by the overall lack of political axe-grinding.

Jeff Bridges took Best Actor for Crazy Heart, and while his speech treaded dangerously on the line between grateful and awkwardly ecstatic, the win was well-deserved and long overdue. He’s got a very large body of work behind him, and he’s an exceptional actor. It was good to see him finally take the little gold man home.

Sandra Bullock took Best Actress for The Blind Side, and her acceptance speech was wonderful. It was sincere, graceful, funny, and down-to-earth. She successfully pulled quite a few other people up to share the honor, including the other nominees. And she’s another excellent artist who is certainly deserving of the award.

Keep Reading ...

Dear Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,

This year is a momentous one for the Oscars, primarily because you’ve nominated ten movies for best picture. Bravo. When I saw which movies had made the cut I was especially surprised. Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker I was expecting, but District 9? Hell yes!

Sadly, however, your august body of voters have chosen this year to overcompensate for past stodginess by also nominating Avatar. Like everyone else on the planet, I’ve seen Avatar. And I had a good time. I bet it was even fun for you too, and you probably didn’t feel that guilty about taking a break from all the French New Wave and Italian Neorealism.

The problem is that Avatar really isn’t great. It’s popular and it certainly looks pretty, but what else does it have? Cartoonish bad guys? Topless aliens? When it comes right down to it Avatar is just a Fern Gully mash-up with an enormous budget. It’s impressive, yes, but hardly profound. (This very publication has a review here that says as much.)

Which brings me to my point: please don’t let Avatar win Best Picture. It’s true that last year’s slighting of The Dark Knight was stupid and it’s understandable that you don’t want to make the same mistake twice. However, remember that being popular or impressive isn’t the same thing as being great. Also, there are a whole bunch of other best picture nominees that are popular and acclaimed. Why not give the Oscar to Up, The Blind Side or Inglourious Basterds? These are also all movies that people actually watched.

The problem is that I keep reading about how the contest for best picture is going to come down to The Hurt Locker and, of course, Avatar. The former is a great war movie and, if still in the not-widely-seen genre, is complex and lingering enough to deserve a nomination. Avatar isn’t. I know that I’ve criticized the Academy before for being out of touch (here, for example), but I had hoped for some kind of balance between quality and popular appeal. An Avatar win, on the other hand, will say that it’s one or the other.

So this year keep throwing the fans a bone, but don’t blatantly pander. You proved me wrong about taking “business as usual,” but don’t completely jump ship on quality.

Keep Reading ...

June 23, 2008

Despite what one of my friends claims as her only explicable reason for not loving Get Smart, Steve Carrell’s latest foray into the comedy scene contained next to none of the despicably overused crotch humor all of decent civilization has finally come to despise.

If you haven’t heard about this film… well, first of all, I’m surprised. It got plenty of ad time, and Steve Carrell is currently a comedy darling. You really should have heard of this movie by now. But, if you haven’t, here’s a very brief description: This is a film adaptation of a popular TV comedy of the same name about a secret spy organization built to combat their evil Soviet counterparts. The movie ends up being your typical action comedy, of which there are simply too few.

Let me rephrase. There are far too few good action comedies. Shanghai NOON, Rush Hour (ONE), The Mummy, and, to some degree, the Indiana Jones movies are all great examples, but there really aren’t a lot of them. And when they’re done well, they’re an absolute blast and a half. I think that no other genre (hybrid or no) can satisfy the need for fun quite like it.

And Get Smart was an awful lot of fun. I haven’t laughed that hard in a theater in… oh, who knows? I laughed, out loud and often. And by the end of the movie, all I could do was smile — and decide to see it again in the near future.

First of all, this is Steve Carrell at his best. He was perfectly cast for this part, and he doesn’t succumb to any predictability in filling the role. I was constantly impressed with the uniqueness of his quirky character.

Anne Hathaway was a much tougher sell because I haven’t seen The Devil Wears Prada (I do plan on it, I promise) [note: I finally saw it, and it's brilliant], and so I can’t claim to have ever enjoyed watching her on screen. Well, she did a fabulous job in this film. I adored her character. She was professional, capable, sexy, uptight and almost completely believable. Shoot, I even bought the chemistry between her and Carrell. Awesome work, dudes (who made this movie.)

Keep Reading ...

This year, don’t blow it. Instead, do yourself a favor and attend the Sundance Film Festival. As one of the country’s best know film galas it has great movies, celebrities and wild parties — and if you happen to be living along the Wasatch Front, it’s virtually in your backyard.

This year might just belong to Sandra Bullock. Besides getting some decent award nominations and buzz, her latest film The Blind Side reached the $200 million milestone at the domestic box office on January 1st. That’s an accomplishment for any movie, but in this case it’s particularly important because, according to this Entertainment Weekly posting, it’s also a first for a movie headlined solely by a female performer.

Yet while Bullock is undoubtedly one of the day’s biggest stars, the victory seems odd. The Blind Side was, after all, Bullock’s third movie released in 2009. Her first film last year, The Proposal, was a hit, though it hasn’t made nearly as much domestically and will ultimately be outperformed by The Blind Side. Bullock’s second film, All About Steve, fared even worse — it was only the third most popular film during its opening weekend and has since become a certified critical dud.

Clearly, then, something besides Bullock’s star power is contributing to the success of The Blind Side. Though her name holds an obvious draw, it can’t fully account for the film’s financial success — The Proposal and All About Steve also gave Bullock top billing, but nevertheless failed to remain perched atop the box office charts.

Among the many possible explanations for The Blind Side’s success, the most obvious is the film’s quality. Simply put, The Blind Side is a good movie — or has at least been heralded as such by several critics. All About Steve and The Proposal are not. Though marketing, content and star appeal also contribute to a successful movie, people will obviously like good material more than bad. Thus, it’s only logical that the best movies make the most money, right?

Well, sort of. The answer is complex, but Bullock’s three recent films suggest the best movies are both popular and critically lauded. Currently, for example, The Blind Side holds a 72 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. By contrast, The Proposal has a 43 percent and All About Steve an abysmal 6 percent. Much like audiences, movie critics gravitated toward Bullock’s better work and lambasted her bad stuff.

Similarly, other critically esteemed films have also made loads of money. Titanic, for example, is the highest grossing film of all time and has an 83 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Likewise, Avatar is already the second-highest grossing film of all time, followed by Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Both of those films were also highly praised by critics.

Keep Reading ...