Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Oscar Caught Whacking Off
Most of the major awards at the 1984 Oscars seemed to be a battle between "Amadeus" and "The Killing Fields." For the record, "Amadeus" was up for 11 statues to 7 nods for "Fields."
I'm not a fan of classical music by any stretch of the imagination, but I do vaguely remember enjoying "Amadeus" at least a little bit the one time I watched it about 20 years ago, which is more than I can say for "The Killing Fields." A few years back, a buddy of mine at work had it on tape, and insisted I watched it. He couldn't believe I had never seen it and assured me that I would be blown away. Well, it blew all right. I couldn't stand it, so I guess I'm O.K. with "Amadeus" winning Best Picture over it.
A classic film came out that year, however, that wasn't even nominated. I think it should have been, though: "The Karate Kid." It was certainly a better picture than "Amadeus." Pat Morita was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but didn't win, which is an unforgivable crime (Haing S. Ngor won for "The Killing Fields.")
Other Oscar snubs: I know the Academy VERY rarely likes to award comedy, but Eddie Murphy in "Beverly Hills Cop" deserves some kind of recognition. One of the finest comedic performances of all time. Side note: the screenplay for "Cop" was nominated, but lost out to "Places In The Heart." While I'm on the subject, comedy is one thing the Oscars routinely screw up. It's much harder to make people laugh than cry, yet sentimental, by-the-numbers tearjerkers are given awards year after year while comedies are ignored. The Academy Awards should steal a page from the Golden Globes and have separate categories for Drama and Comedy. It's an idea that's way past due. After all, a few years back they established a new category for animated films, so why not do the same for comedy? Meanwhile, we'll laugh at the Oscars next time when we look at 1985.
I'm not a fan of classical music by any stretch of the imagination, but I do vaguely remember enjoying "Amadeus" at least a little bit the one time I watched it about 20 years ago, which is more than I can say for "The Killing Fields." A few years back, a buddy of mine at work had it on tape, and insisted I watched it. He couldn't believe I had never seen it and assured me that I would be blown away. Well, it blew all right. I couldn't stand it, so I guess I'm O.K. with "Amadeus" winning Best Picture over it.
A classic film came out that year, however, that wasn't even nominated. I think it should have been, though: "The Karate Kid." It was certainly a better picture than "Amadeus." Pat Morita was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but didn't win, which is an unforgivable crime (Haing S. Ngor won for "The Killing Fields.")
Other Oscar snubs: I know the Academy VERY rarely likes to award comedy, but Eddie Murphy in "Beverly Hills Cop" deserves some kind of recognition. One of the finest comedic performances of all time. Side note: the screenplay for "Cop" was nominated, but lost out to "Places In The Heart." While I'm on the subject, comedy is one thing the Oscars routinely screw up. It's much harder to make people laugh than cry, yet sentimental, by-the-numbers tearjerkers are given awards year after year while comedies are ignored. The Academy Awards should steal a page from the Golden Globes and have separate categories for Drama and Comedy. It's an idea that's way past due. After all, a few years back they established a new category for animated films, so why not do the same for comedy? Meanwhile, we'll laugh at the Oscars next time when we look at 1985.
Monday, December 19, 2005
An Off Year
I don't really have much to say about the '83 Academy Awards. "Terms Of Endearment," possibly the biggest chick-flick of all time, dominated the Awards. The most competition came from "The Big Chill" and "The Right Stuff." "Endearment" has clearly stood the test of time, as tons of people still remember this movie very fondly, so I guess Oscar did okay this year. For the record, this isn't my kind of movie, but I'm clearly in the minority so who am I to argue?
Off the top of my head, a bunch of great movies came out this year, but you really can't make a case for any of them being snubbed for Oscars: Trading Places, WarGames, Return Of The Jedi, Mr. Mom, Strange Brew, Vacation, and D.C. Cab. Don't worry, Mr. T. Some day your Oscar will come.
Hopefully 1984 will give me something more exciting to write about.
Off the top of my head, a bunch of great movies came out this year, but you really can't make a case for any of them being snubbed for Oscars: Trading Places, WarGames, Return Of The Jedi, Mr. Mom, Strange Brew, Vacation, and D.C. Cab. Don't worry, Mr. T. Some day your Oscar will come.
Hopefully 1984 will give me something more exciting to write about.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Oscar Phones It In
Today, we continue the year-by-year look at the Academy Awards, taking a peek at how their choices have fared over time. This time out, we're in 1982.
"Gandhi" was the big winner that year, taking home trophies for Best Picture, Actor (Ben Kingsley), Director (Richard Attenborough), and Screenplay.
I've never seen "Gandhi," so I can't comment on it. I'm sure it's a fine film, and I certainly can't take anything away from Ben Kingsley, who is always fantastic. Seems to me, though, that "Gandhi" followed the Oscar blue-print to a T. The academy can never seem to get enough of sweeping historical epics, especially ones based on folks as famous as Gandhi.
But guess what "Gandhi" beat out? A little film called "E.T. The Extra Terrestrial."
Like I said, I've never seen "Gandhi," but I'm pretty fucking sure it's not as good as "E.T." It may be better than the wretched E.T. video game for the Atari 2600, but not the movie. And Spielberg was robbed of the Director award for the second year in a row.
I guess the bottom line is life would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything, which is what is making this little project so fun. See you in 1983.
"Gandhi" was the big winner that year, taking home trophies for Best Picture, Actor (Ben Kingsley), Director (Richard Attenborough), and Screenplay.
I've never seen "Gandhi," so I can't comment on it. I'm sure it's a fine film, and I certainly can't take anything away from Ben Kingsley, who is always fantastic. Seems to me, though, that "Gandhi" followed the Oscar blue-print to a T. The academy can never seem to get enough of sweeping historical epics, especially ones based on folks as famous as Gandhi.
But guess what "Gandhi" beat out? A little film called "E.T. The Extra Terrestrial."
Like I said, I've never seen "Gandhi," but I'm pretty fucking sure it's not as good as "E.T." It may be better than the wretched E.T. video game for the Atari 2600, but not the movie. And Spielberg was robbed of the Director award for the second year in a row.
I guess the bottom line is life would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything, which is what is making this little project so fun. See you in 1983.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
The Test Of Time: First Of A Series
Entertainment Weekly recently did a piece on "The 30 Greatest Sports Movies of All-Time." What caught my eye, however, was a little side-bar highlighting a few famous sports movies that didn't make their list for various reasons. Among them: "Chariots Of Fire," which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1981. EW felt that "Fire" just didn't stand the test of time, and noted that Warren Beatty's "Reds" probably deserved the Oscar that year.
This got me thinking, because it seems that every year when I watch the Oscars, there's always at least one head-scratcher, sometimes several. So I thought it would be fun to go back and look at past years and see how well some of the Academy's choices have aged over the years. I'll do this over the next few weeks, covering one year's awards each time. Maybe I'll even get enough mileage out of this to carry me through to this year's ceremony.
Since EW's comment about "Chariots Of Fire" got this whole thing going, I guess I'll start right there in 1981. And guess what? The magazine was right. In my humble opinion, "Chariots Of Fire" certainly did not deserve the Best Picture Oscar that year. But I sure as hell don't think "Reds" did, either.
A quick side-note before I reveal which of the other nominees I feel was not given what it so richly deserved. For some bizarre reason, I saw both "Chariots of Fire" AND "Reds" that year. IN THE THEATRES. Why is that so strange? Because I was 10 FUCKING YEARS OLD (making my younger brother, who also went to these flicks, only 8). For some reason, my Dad thought "Chariots of Fire" would be a great movie to bring two little kids to, with Mom apparently feeling likewise about "Reds." I remember both experiences being pretty horrific, with the torture of "Reds" made even worse because it was so damned long there was an intermission. That's right, an intermission. Anybody else ever experience this kind of unique hell?
Back on topic now. There was a quiet little picture also vying for the honor of being named Best Picture that year that you may have heard of. It's called "Raiders Of The Lost Ark." Test of time? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it passed. Sorry, Oscar, I think you missed the boat on this one. Steven Spielberg probably should have won the Director Oscar also, losing out to Warren Beatty.
Check back soon for an exciting look at Oscar '82.
This got me thinking, because it seems that every year when I watch the Oscars, there's always at least one head-scratcher, sometimes several. So I thought it would be fun to go back and look at past years and see how well some of the Academy's choices have aged over the years. I'll do this over the next few weeks, covering one year's awards each time. Maybe I'll even get enough mileage out of this to carry me through to this year's ceremony.
Since EW's comment about "Chariots Of Fire" got this whole thing going, I guess I'll start right there in 1981. And guess what? The magazine was right. In my humble opinion, "Chariots Of Fire" certainly did not deserve the Best Picture Oscar that year. But I sure as hell don't think "Reds" did, either.
A quick side-note before I reveal which of the other nominees I feel was not given what it so richly deserved. For some bizarre reason, I saw both "Chariots of Fire" AND "Reds" that year. IN THE THEATRES. Why is that so strange? Because I was 10 FUCKING YEARS OLD (making my younger brother, who also went to these flicks, only 8). For some reason, my Dad thought "Chariots of Fire" would be a great movie to bring two little kids to, with Mom apparently feeling likewise about "Reds." I remember both experiences being pretty horrific, with the torture of "Reds" made even worse because it was so damned long there was an intermission. That's right, an intermission. Anybody else ever experience this kind of unique hell?
Back on topic now. There was a quiet little picture also vying for the honor of being named Best Picture that year that you may have heard of. It's called "Raiders Of The Lost Ark." Test of time? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it passed. Sorry, Oscar, I think you missed the boat on this one. Steven Spielberg probably should have won the Director Oscar also, losing out to Warren Beatty.
Check back soon for an exciting look at Oscar '82.
