Oscar Review & Wrap-Up

Last night was the biggest night in Hollywood- stars, moguls and wanna-bes crowd the red carpet and hope for gold. Before I launch into my review of the show and the awards, let it be known that I am biased because I thought last year's show (Produced by my boss Larry Mark and Bill Condon) was exceptional... and far superior to last night's.

First, let's discuss the show in general... Biggest note - too long!! The movie clips were too long during the acting categories; Even longer for the big two acting awards with speeches from past collaborators and another star to come out, say the names again and finally announce the winner! Poor planning- why did we need a sixth star for these two categories. [And as a side note, why only the main acting noms getting this treatment? Take about pushing aside the supporting actors! And in the opening of the show they only showcased the lead actors. I think that's in poor taste.]
The show also had a lengthy, though deserved, tribute to John Hughes. I wonder if we would have had enough of a moment had just Molly Ringwald and Matthew Broderick come out and introduced the montage. Did we need to see the bigger set of actors, especially those who have aged poorly (sorry!)?

Let's now talk about content of the show- it's a bit all over the place. A horror segment? Really? This feels like a copy-cat of last year's show format, where they showcased all the main genres of film (Comedy, Romance, Drama, Action, Animation), but instead just did horror. Hmmm, maybe it would have made more sense if a horror movie had been nominated? OR if they'd actually spoken about the runaway hit of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY instead of just a funny bit with Alec and Steve? I mean, I laughed, but people who haven't seen the movie didn't get it (a few were at our party) and again, it didn't tie into the Oscars AT ALL.
Also, the opening number of the show... well, let's start with the fact that Neil Patrick Harris did it. Isn't it weird to open a show with someone OTHER than your hosts? And while the Vegas showgirl number did recall some old Hollywood movies, especially with the choreography onstage, I'm guessing most people didn't get the reference. At least last year's two musical numbers in the show directly related to movies and mostly movies being celebrated. (The first was Hugh Jackman singing about the nominees, and the Baz Luhrman number was about the musicals being back...and they had done extremely well at the box office of late. PLUS it went with their theme of showcasing each genre.)

This year, everyone wanted younger.... well it's a bit bizarre considering last year they had Zac Efron, Vanessa Hudgons, Robert Pattinson and Amanda Seyfried presenting and some performing. So bringing half of those people back was a novelty, how? Plus Miley Cyrus was so wrong when she said it was their first oscars... um no. Miley was THERE last year, presented the year before that and as I said, Amanda Seyfried presented last year with Pattinson. (Which again, I have to say was more clever than throwing the two Twilight-ers together as they did this year with Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner.)

Finally- in terms of the show being random, what was up with the set?! A backdrop of a bunch of lampshades? WTF? What's the reference? And then at some point, the backdrop seemed to be a big wall of cubby holes. Again, at least last year, the set was dressed for whichever awards were being given out (costumes, effects, lighting, etc)

Alright, I'm done bashing the show and this year's producers (Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic, who btw were flapping their gums the past few months about how much better this year's show was going to be over last year's. Ahem). Onto the awards!!

It's no secret to anyone that I was a huge fan of AVATAR. In my book, there's no bigger achievement in filmmaking for the year- and that's what Best Picture if meant to be - the biggest achievement. Not the movie that had the most original story necessarily - that's what Best Screeplay is for. Not the movie that had the absolute BEST acting- that's what those awards for. This is meant to be the best combination of it all- the best achievement in filmmaking... and I'm sorry, HURT LOCKER just wasn't it. NO WAY JOSE!
So yeah, that irked me.

Another one that I cannot help but be disappointed by was Sandra Bullock winning for THE BLIND SIDE over Meryl Streep as Julia Child in our movie JULIE & JULIA. First of all, Meryl was AMAZING and btw everyone, she hasn't won an Oscar in 28 years! JEEZ! She was so due, and while she's getting great parts, I think we'd better give her another one already before she's done. And while I like Sandra Bullock and from all accounts she's a great human being, I don't think she deserved the award. It was a good performance and I think it's great she came back this year with two strong movies with BLIND and PROPOSAL (and a huge misfire in ALL ABOUT STEVE), she's someone who has made a LOT of bad choices in her career, film-wise. It's hard to get over some of them.

Other awards that surprised - Geoffrey Fletcher taking Best Adapted Screenplay away from Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner. Well done sir! I personally think there was a lot of questions about who wrote what for UP IN THE AIR and that may have affected voting.
Also, Mark Boal winning over Quentin Tarantino for Original Screenplay was considered an upset. Poor Quentin- I think the Academy has a thing against him.

Otherwise, things fell into place. THE WHITE RIBBON losing Best Foreign Film is a bit of an upset since it won the grand prize at Cannes. But I doubt most people were paying attention to that.

So there ya go! My Oscar feedback. Stay tuned for a fashion review tomorrow! It'll take me awhile to get the photos uploaded. But here's a sneak - I thought a lot of dresses were TERRIBLE!

P.S.
Here is another review of the show that I strongly agree with. They make a good point that instead of horror, how about a Sci-Fi tribute, considering this year had the most sci-fi nominees ever?
LA Times