Oscars, and me being a grouch
Well, the nominees for this year's Academy Awards are out (see the list here). Looking over the list, it seems like I've seen even fewer of the nominated movies than usual. But perhaps even more interesting is that more than ever I'm not particularly interested in the movies considered to be the best of 2005. And given my lack of knowledge/interest in this year's crop, I don't think I'll be participating in any Oscar-picking contests.
I'm already aware that my taste in movies tends to be very different from the critics. I probably just don't appreciate fine filmmaking when I see it (for further evidence, check out my list of favorite movies). But I do have one particular bone to pick with the Academy. Why didn't the most recent Star Wars movie, Revenge of the Sith, get a nomination for best visual effects?! Say whatever you will about the merits (or lack thereof) of it as a movie, but if there's one thing the Star Wars movies have it's eye candy. I don't mean to say that the nominees (Narnia, King Kong, and War of the Worlds) don't have some impressive visual effects. And I know that (for whatever reason) the Academy has chosen to limit this category to three nominees instead of the five for most other categories. And Revenge of the Sith did get a nod with a nomination for best makeup. But it still feels like a snub. I mean, War of the Worlds and not Revenge of the Sith? I know it's a Spielberg flick, but does War of the Worlds even deserve one (let alone three!) nominations?
Okay, rant over. Let's hope the upcoming year brings some more interesting movies, including a few I might be able to back come this time next year.
3 comments:
Even if you don't make any picks, you should still watch it. The Right Hon. Jon Stewart is hosting!
I've lost faith in the Oscars given their recent string of "political" awards. Case in point - Denzel was good in "Training Day," but no way did he deserve to beat Russell Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind." Similarly, this year Russell Crowe was stiffed for "Cinderlla Man" and part of me thinks that has to do with his behavior. So he might be an asshole, but the man can act, and he was definitely better in that than Heath Ledger in "Brokeback" (who, just as aside, also did a geat job, but I'm just saying).
I don't think snubbing Crowe is in any sense political. They did award him for Gladiator (when he probably should have won it for The Insider), and he was a complete asshole back then, too.
I personally didn't find Revenge of the Sith's graphics all that impressive. No doubt that the sheer number of effects shots is a technical marvel, but effects that have to be integrated more heavily into real world set peices and backgrounds are more impressive to my untrained and uninformed eye. Maybe this is what the Academy voters look for, since they, too, largely are uninformed about pretty much anything that makes a film good.
Post a Comment