So the Oscars are over for another year - did the Academy get it right or wrong and what did you think of Seth McFarlane as host?

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 74. Posted by Whitchfinder

    on 5 Mar 2013 14:19

    Most of these films are a 'recent crop', released to be in the minds of academy members at awards time. The rest of the year was a wasteland of sequels, multiplex fodder and cheapo third-rate productions. There are no surprises. It's a love-in for a bunch of movies you can most likely still see at the cinema as the Oscars are broadcast.

    It's cynical in the extreme. Having Seth McFarlane as host is the cherry on top. It's now de-rigueur to be trashy and abrasive and pretend to be subversive while the audience groans along. What a total sink.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 74: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 74: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 73. Posted by rbevanx

    on 4 Mar 2013 18:23

    No they were soooooo right this year...because I won 130 quid thanks to Ang Lee, Argo and clueless bookmakers.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 73: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 73: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 72. Posted by SCC Overton

    on 2 Mar 2013 16:10

    It's easy to understand the Oscars. The film that wins in its category is the one that best exemplifies American values. Hence, Brave winning over Pirates. If there are two films that exemplify American values to equal degrees, then the award goes to the one with the "Most Acting/Editing/Direction/Score" (not the "Best") as Mark has pointed out previously.
    I also think Seth MacFarlane was actually quite good. For a start, you don't hire Seth MacFarlane and expect him to be anything other than what he is, and he toned himself down for this show. I tend to think his jokes were greater than the sum of their parts (eg: following the Mel Gibson joke - "Oh, so you're on his side then?") - the way his humour challenges the audience is part of its brilliance. Plus, he *really* knows pop culture and celebrities, just as he *really* knows films - that shouldn't be overlooked. Nor should his singing and dancing - some really great routines there and a touch of that old Hollywood magic - really talented people performing live (or in one take) a la Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, etc. Good stuff, I reckon.
    Just don't expect the "best" film to win "Best Film".

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 72: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 72: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 71. Posted by information1st

    on 1 Mar 2013 22:21

    It's interesting that the Empire Awards go for genre categories: I like that, though no foreign film category: A category that Empire is REALLY NEGLIGENT of... *curls upper lip*

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21626296

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 71: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 71: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 70. Posted by Size

    on 1 Mar 2013 03:28

    I totally agree with you about BRAVE Mark. PIRATES! was absolutely a better film (One of my favourite films of last year) as was FRANKENWEENIE. Two wonderful animated tales that were fun, funny and beautiful to look at. With BRAVE, Pixar just seemed to be on auto pilot with an utterly by the numbers film that only manages to showcase Pixar's ability to do CG hair. Pixar are amazing but this was no way near the giddy highs of what has come before them. I never watch the ceremony as it is (lets face it) indescribably nauseating to seeing a room full of very very rich and beautiful people pat themselves on the back and laugh nervously at poorly written jokes but on the whole though, I thought that it was a pretty good spread Oscar winner wise.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 70: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 70: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 69. Posted by Truchsess

    on 1 Mar 2013 01:22

    @MiddleClassFury
    Ok, I really have to agree here!
    In the category of "Best Cinematography", Deakins with his work on "Skyfall" would have been the clear number one choice!
    It's funny though, because even though I really enjoyed the fact, that "Life of Pi" won that oscar, I was disapointed for "Skyfall"... which a friend of mine, who watched the show with me, found extremly weird, since I've probably been one of the most obnoxious "Life of Pi"-Fanboys of the season ;-)
    So we had a long argument about the question, how much influence the cinematographer actually had on the visualls in "Life of Pi", and although I'm happy for every award that movie gets, I think the right choice would have been:

    "Best Cinematography": "Skyfall"
    "Best Special Effects": "Life of Pi"

    But I really think for a layman it's hard to actually determine who did what in any movie anyway.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 69: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 69: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 68. Posted by MiddleClassFury

    on 28 Feb 2013 10:36

    The fact that Roger Deakins was again snubbed by the Oscars is even more galling when you consider that the winning film in this category - Life of Pi - was so reliant on the skill of the visual effects artists that worked on it. It wasn't just a believable Tiger they produced, but environments, backgrounds, colour, lighting,etc. The most magnificent shots in that film were born in a computer, not the camera.

    Incidentally, these are the same artists who are now out of a job due to Hollywood's complete lack of understanding about what these people do and how valuable they are. This erroneous Oscar award proves it...

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 68: 4
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 68: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 67. Posted by Mark Nurdin

    on 28 Feb 2013 06:47

    And I agree the Bond tribute was awful. How could you be excited by that?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 67: 3
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 67: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 66. Posted by Mark Nurdin

    on 28 Feb 2013 06:46

    Okay, okay, so the "boobs" song...let's get one thing straight; first of all, MacFarlane more than made up for it with the great song and dance numbers he performed - did anyone else know that Joseph Gordon-Levitt could dance and sing? Secondly, the whole point of that particular joke was MacFarlane making fun of the controversy that often surrounds him. God forbid Trey Parker and Matt Stone ever get asked to host. They'd make Ricky Gervais look tame. Oh wait...so did MacFarlane.

    Crystal was and is a great host but so was Bob Hope. So was Steve Martin. So was Ellen. So was Chris Rock! MacFarlane's already stated he won't host again, on account of the amount of work he has on his plate; nothing to do with the reaction of the press or negative reaction from the stars. Even Clooney enjoyed it.

    Grumble moan grumble grumble.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 66: 1
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 66: 1
    Loading…
  • Comment number 65. Posted by Truchsess

    on 27 Feb 2013 23:33

    I actually really liked Seth MacFarlane as the hoste. Really the best hoste I've seen for this event (it was only my third watch, so the bar isn't set too hight).

    I really loved the fact, that Ang Lee got the oscar for best direction! For me, that movie was the highlight of the year, and would have been a deserving winner for "best picture". Anyway, since I knew, that he had no chance for that particular oscar, I was really hoping that he at least would get acknowledgment in form of the directors-award.

    The greatest mis-steps certainly were the screenplays.
    Yes, Argo is a good movie and well writen, but again I have to point to "Life of Pi". While I was watching this movie I was constantly thinking "Now, THAT'S what cinema is made for! Only a movie can tell this story"... only to then go home and find out that it actually was originally a book, that people considered impossibel to make a movie out of it! Now, THAT'S a great adaptation!
    But even worse is the award for "Django" in the screenwriting department! Yes, the movie has great writing and everything, but I can't accept a screenplay as a winner, where story and tone are so all over the place, and with such huge plot-holes. Especially unforgivable when you have movies like "Amour" or "Zero Dark Thirty" in the same category.

    Christoph Waltz and Jennifer Lawrence to me were the big surprises. I like their performances, I sort of consider it a good compromise to my choices (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jessica Chastain), but I really didn't expect them to win.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 65: 2
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 65: 2
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next