posted
I'm not sure why, but I often feel let down by Oscar nominated movies. I don't know if it's because I just don't have Oscar worthy tastes, or perhaps it's because I don't typically see them until they come out on video, in which case the hoopla surrounding them raises my expectations unrealistically.
This year, for instance, I didn't really care for either Capote or Good Night, Good Luck. And over the weekend I finally saw Brokeback Mountain, which I thought was okay, but nothing spectacular.
Don't get me wrong. It was sure pretty to look at, with the mountains and the stars and all that, and the storyline wasn't bad, and everyone acted well in it. However, I was left feeling at the end as though I had missed the boat somehow. I just wasn't wowed by it.
Maybe it felt too "Hollywood" to me. I'm not sure. As gay themed movies go, I much preferred Latter Days and Eating Out (one drama, one comedy) that both came out (no pun intended) in limited release last year. Neither had a big budget, neither had any big names attached (well, Latter Days had Jacqueline Bisset, but not as a central character), but in both cases I just really enjoyed watching them, and have watched both several times. Brokeback didn't grab me enough to make me watch it again, let alone buy the DVD.
I'm sure it's probably just me and my wacky tastes. After all, everybody else appears to love Oscar movies, and they can't all be wrong, right?
-------------------- Some people are like slinkys: not really good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when you knock them down a flight of stairs
From: Penthouse atop Levitz Hall, LMBP Plaza, Embassy Row, Legion World | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the duds that the Academy has consistently nominated in many of the Best Picture slots, over the decades, I've long wondered at the voters' tastes and decision paths. After 35 years of watching Oscar ceremonies, I'm still scratching my head more than cheering on that late-Winter night.
"The English Patient"? "The Silence of the Lambs"? "Rocky"? "Oliver!"? That's just four hugely mis-honored films in the Best Picture category, for me, during my lifetime. None were at all "bad" movies, but none blew away the competition (sometimes STIFF) with their artistry and distinctive vision.
Bogart had the right idea, or a right-er one. If you must honor a Best Actor, have the nominees all do the same scene from "Hamlet," say, and then judge. If even that makes sense, comparing wildly different styles and genres, for actors or technicians or writers.
With how complex any movie ends up being, even a formula drama or comedy, I'd just go with what resonates with your own taste -- realizing that we're all different constellations of influences and favorites. Comparing your own "grabbers" with those of people immersed in making films for a living ... well, I'd be shocked, really, if they didn't wildly differ for most of us.
From: Starhaven Consulate, City of Angels | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I think the idea of "Best Picture" is rather overblown. Such a declaration sort of implies there's more to this movie than others. And that isn't always the case.
I look at the Oscar awards and strong endorsements to see a movie. Certainly worth seeing, but not the best picture of the year.
From: Denver, CO | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
