Oscars the Grouch
Yes, now that the Super Bowl has come and gone, it’s time for the second major event of the year. Something that a female acquaintance of mine (Michelle) referred to as “my Super Bowl.”
Yes, I am talking about The Academy Awards. One of my least favorite events. I dislike everything about it – best not to get into specifics. Suffice it to say:
Oh, please don’t ask why, no one quite knows the reason.
It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
It could be his head wasn’t screwed on just right.
But I think that the most likely reason of yore
May have been that Forest Gump won Best Picture in 1994.
Apologies to Dr. Seuss.
I’ve bored and/or annoyed the crap out of multiple people who were unfortunate enough to have mentioned Gump to me. I saw it after the hype machine went into overdrive and obliterated every objective impulse I had. I did not – and do not now – see what all the fuss was about. It was, to me, an average movie at best. I didn’t hate it, didn’t love it…But it was not anywhere close to being the best movie of 1994.
In fact, the best movie of 1994 is actually a tie – between Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption, I can’t figure out which of these two I feel deserves the nod more. I’d have given out two Best Picture awards and thanked Tom Hanks for such a great performance in Philadelphia.
Since 1994, I have pretty much paid little or no attention to the Oscars, as it was clear that there was nothing there that represented me and my tastes. Or to paraphrase Morrissey: Because the movies that they constantly play – they say nothing to me about my life.
So that was that. Or so I thought. After having another rousing, Gump dissing discussion about the 1994 Oscars with Michelle, who said she agreed with me (I am not oblivious to the fact that she could have been humoring me to get me to shut up) – that Gump was NOT all that, I felt inspired to write about the Oscars. And this meant looking at the nominees for Best Picture since 1994.
I had assumed that the list would be full of movies that I didn’t see and didn’t want to see, as that was how it seemed to go many of the years that I actually did pay attention. But something odd happened when I started to dig. I found that there were movies listed that I had seen – and even ones I had liked!
This was shocking to me, to say the least. It doesn’t change my mind about disliking the Oscars, but it did get me to thinking about some of the movies on the lists.
For example:
1995 – Apollo 13 – Now this is a great Tom Hanks movie! I have heard many great things about Braveheart, so I guess I can’t say that the wrong movie got Best Picture. But I was surprised to see Apollo 13 even on the list.
1996 – The English Patient? I think I will have to go with Elaine Benes on this one. What was it up against? Oh, nothing special – Fargo and, shockingly, Secrets and Lies. I can’t believe that such a fine film was actually in the running! If you haven’t seen Secrets and Lies, I recommend you do so. Now. Also, Jerry Maguire was nominated in 1996. I’m not a big Tom Cruise fan, but I could make a case for this flick as well. Perhaps I should actually see The English Patient before closing the book on this. But I can’t see myself liking it. Yes – I am insular. Never said I wasn’t.
1997 – Titanic won. Saw it – it was good. Just a biiit overrated. It was up against some known quantities including two I didn’t see: As Good As It Gets, Good Will Hunting; and two I did: The Full Monty and LA Confidential. Out of the three that I saw – it’s LA Confidential by a landslide.
1998 – A curious year. Shakespeare In Love won, and I’m a bit surprised that given the Tom Hanks factor, that Saving Private Ryan did not. I did not see the other three films, so I will refrain from further comment on this.
1999 – There’s that Tom Hanks again (The Green Mile). Some big names here – Kevin Spacey (American Beauty), Tobey Maguire (Spider-Man…uh, I mean The Cider House Rules), Al Pacino (The Insider) and Bruce Willis (The Sixth Sense). A couple of asides here. One: I’ve seen maybe three Pacino movies that I liked, and probably a dozen or more that I did not. I just don’t get what folks love about him or his performances. Two: This is the second appearance of Russell Crowe in the Best Picture list (The Insider). Clearly, something was brewing. Of course, on my list, he’d already won once (see 1997). The winner? One I’d actually seen – and liked: American Beauty.
2000 – So here’s the first of Best Picture wins for Russell Crowe movies – Gladiator. Some interesting films in the running, but only one other that I’d seen – Erin Brockovich, which is that rare movie in that it features Julia Roberts and I liked it. And it also featured Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). But between the two, I’d agree with Gladiator. Special shout out to I Love You, Man and Jason Segel: Chocolate was also nominated.
2001 – Aaand, it’s Crowe again, for A Beautiful Mind. This is one of those infrequent nominated films that I did not see that I would like to see. I saw Moulin Rouge, but did not think it was worthy of Best Picture. I also note that The Fellowship of the Rings was nominated. Nice to see Hollywood open up a bit and include a film like that. I’d have liked it if this type of thinking was in place in 1980 for The Empire Strikes Back – how could this not have even been nominated? I can’t believe Star Wars was nominated. And don’t get me started on the fact that it should have won in 1977.
2002 – I did not see any of the five films nominated. Yes, really. I might have an interest in seeing The Hours, but that’s about it.
2003 – So Lord of The Rings won. Amazing. I didn’t think that a SciFi movie could win. And there were some strong contenders – Master And Commander, Seabiscuit, Mystic River and Lost In Translation. I think I’d have given it to Lost In Translation. This seems to me to be an underrated film. Of course, I’d bet that Mystic River is excellent, given the fact that Clint Eastwood was a producer. I have more faith in him than I do in what is a noteworthy cast. And since I have liked Russell Crowe movies, I’d probably like Master and Commander too.
2004 & 2005 – I’d really like to see Million Dollar Baby. I’m amazed that I have not seen any of the films nominated for either of these two years. I think I might like Capote and Munich.
And am I seeing this right that no Harry Potter movie was ever nominated? Not only did they make oodles of money – they were all good!! Goblet of Fire was out in 2005 – I would have celebrated this selection as the Best Picture winner.
2006 – Kind of a blah year for me. I saw The Queen and Little Miss Sunshine, and liked both – but not enough that I’d have thought they’d be nominated for Best Picture. I’m sure I’ll have no end of people telling me how great The Departed was. I’m sure it was – and maybe I’ll see it and like it someday. I’ve been surprised before.
2007 – Lots of interesting movies here – No Country For Old Men, Juno, There Will Be Blood – but, alas, I have not seen any of the nominated films. But I’d very much like to see No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood. Atonement sounds interesting too.
2008 – Amazingly, never saw any of the nominated films. Can’t even say that I have a strong interest in seeing any of these movies, other than the year’s winner Slumdog Millionaire. Maybe Milk, but for whatever reason, Sean Penn doesn’t do much for me since Fast Times at Ridgemont High – which I am guessing he’d rather people would forget about. And no sign of the brilliant Dark Knight? I pity the fools!!
Also in 2008: Iron Man. Gran Torino. The Wrestler. Twilight (not my cup of tea, but this has legions of supporters). Hancock. It would seem that the nominations are not based on what movies people actually went to see.
2009 – Wow! They’ve expanded the list of nominated films to 10. More films for me not to have seen! The Hurt Locker wins, and this joins the list of nominated films I’d like to see. I did see Inglorious Basterds and loved it. I expected it to be good, and it was even better than I expected.
2010 – Haven’t seen any of these films. Where is Iron Man 2 and Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows, Part 1?
OK, so that was a fun trip down memory lane. What, if anything, did it accomplish? Nothing – that wasn’t the point. The casual reader might look at it and think that I need to get out more and see some damn movies. I look at it and am surprised at how many movies that were nominated that I have seen. And just as surprised that there are others that I would like to see.
My initial thought when I sat down to write about The Oscars would be that it would be a preening celebfest that showers attention on an egotistical, narcissistic lot. And this is what I don’t like. But I found that there are more than a few movies that I do like. I think that if the Oscars would show lenghty snippets of the movies they’re celebrating – instead of celebrities entering the building – that I might be compelled to watch The Academy Awards.
All that fuss about what the actors and actresses are wearing. Honestly, they’re rich and famous! What else do people expect other than for them to be in designer clothes? It would be refreshing to see them show up in casual clothes.
If I had my way, the Oscars would be about the movies, and not the performers. But that’s not going to happen. But it sure does provide a lot to talk about, doesn’t it?
I wonder what the spread is for this Super Bowl?
The man in black fled across the desert, and Ron Howard directed…
Rejoice, Constant Readers. At long last, Stephen King’s epic saga, The Dark Tower, is making the leap to the big screen, directed by Opie Cunningham himself, Ron Howard. For those who don’t know, The Dark Tower is King’s magnum opus, the nexus of his entire body of work, with references to the Dark Tower sprinkled throughout the majority of his novels. The task of adapting this behemoth to the screen (seven books clocking in at over a million words, not to mention several ancillary stories that may become part of the films) is going to make The Lord of the Rings look like a one-act play.
Many fans have heaped scorn upon the choice of Howard to direct (I guess they were hoping for Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro, or someone of that ilk). I, for one, will withhold judgment until I see the final product. Howard has made many solid films over the years, and for what it’s worth, he seems to have a deep passion for the project (he worked on it for a year before even presenting the idea to Stephen King)–and there is no way that King would let his baby go unless he was confident that Howard was going to do his books justice. This is not Maximum Overdrive or Christine—The Dark Tower is the center of King’s entire literary universe, and he would not hand over the rights lightly.
The doubters claim that Howard’s body of work leaves no indication that he is capable of taking on a project like this, but was Peter Jackson in a much different position before he began work on Lord of the Rings? And we all know how that turned out. I’m intrigued by the way Howard has chosen to approach the material: a movie trilogy sandwiched around two television series that bridge the three films. Such a concept is unprecedented in cinematic history; it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. It certainly gives the filmmakers latitude to flesh out more of the story than a strict film series would have provided. I wonder, though, how much of the source material will need to be censored in the television series. It would seem to be better suited for a premium channel, but then how many fans would follow it? On the other hand, there have been a few network television miniseries over the years that have done a credible job with King’s work, so perhaps this can work as well.
The most important element of the production is going be the selection of the actor to play series protagonist Roland Deschain, a gunslinger in much the same vein as Clint Eastwood’s character from Sergio Leone’s classic series of spaghetti westerns, with a little bit of Arthurian regalness mixed in. Howard has offered this critical part to Javier Bardem (I have to admit that I have trouble seeing him in this role, but he is an outstanding actor, so I will place my faith in Howard’s judgment). At this point Bardem has yet to accept and there’s no guarantee that he will, for he would be required to commit a huge chunk of the next decade of his life to a single character on both the big and small screen–how many A-list actors would be willing to do that? It could be that we end up with a relative unknown in the role, which might actually be preferable.
Regardless of the choices Howard makes as the project moves forward (and their inevitable dissection by the fan base), I look forward with great excitement to those first moments on the big screen when the Man in Black flees across the desert with the Gunslinger in hot pursuit. And to borrow a phrase from the High Speech of Roland’s hometown of Gilead, I say thankee-sai.
Andy Blank
Mike Frangione
Depends on What the Meaning of the Word 'Blog' is 
Two and a Half Egos
So – wow. I mean, wow. Who is the only person who could make Lady Gaga and Lindsay Lohan seem reserved? Who is it that makes a 55-hour marriage and an odd hair shaving incident seem like just another day at the office?
Welcome, one and all to Charlie & the WTFlate Factory!
This guy is like a runny nose – just when you think you’ve got things under control — there it goes again! In what seems to be a stream of consciousness assault on anything that makes any sense whatsoever, Sheen has been tweeting, texting and conducting fascinating and bizarre interviews to get his points across.
What those points are, I couldn’t begin to say – but it’s been kinda fun to watch this unfold. Just when you think the craziest thing has been uttered, he outcrazies himself. If he was as smart as he says he is, he’d announce that he is no longer speaking/tweeting/texting publicly unless someone pays him to do so.
Charlie’s reaction to the cancellation of the remainder of this season’s Two and a Half Men (and presumably the inevitable permanent cancellation of the show): Double his salary in order for him to come back to the show when everyone with clout involved with the show has made it fairly clear that they want nothing to do with him.
The question that keeps coming through to me is “Why?” Why do media outlets keep giving him a voice? That’s obvious, I guess – it’s not often we get to watch a celebrity crack up before our eyes. I would have thought that they’d stop allowing him an outlet, because, quite frankly, he’s an embarrassment to the entertainment industry as a whole. But he is good TV.
And of course, NBC wasted little time giving Sheen airtime to continue his trucidation of reality. He’s tired of pretending he’s not special. And he seems to believe that the producers of the show are responsible for its stoppage.
And such a sense of entitlement. And why not? CBS built the show around him, and is probably regretting that they cancelled the show before they could incorporate these latest Charlie antics into the episodes. I mean, really. The character on the show is a druken womanizer who has few redeeming qualities. I don’t think that CBS should be so surprised by this. Sheen’s been doing this kind of stuff for years. Just ask Denise Richards. It’s complicated. But then, maybe it’s not. It’s a top rated show that brings in boffo bucks. It’s not hard to understand why CBS tolerated this behavior as long as it did. So they have nobody to blame but CBS.
As for CBS – they would probably be best served to just cancel the show and move on. Or better yet, find out who Charlie hates most as an actor (Emilio Estevez?) and cast that person to replace Charlie on the show. It’s not a stretch to say that the show’s ratings would either stay the same or rise as people tuned in to see what would happen. And the best part is, since Charlie is so egomaniacal, any person selected to replace him would get under his skin. If I was Chuck Lorre, I could think of no greater pleasure than knowing that every episode that aired was driving Charlie Sheen batty.
As is often the case in stories like this, we’ll never know the truth or the whole story. All we’ll know is what is said and what is written about. It’s kind of a shame that this turned out like this. The show wasn’t my cup of tea, but I didn’t have any problem with it going on. So far though, in the court of public opinion, it would seem that Charlie is signing his Hollywood death warrant. But Hollywood probably hasn’t seen the last of Charlie Sheen.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I can’t wait for Charlie’s next proclamations. Maybe a Charlie Sheen/Mel Gibson variety show? I’d watch. As has often been said – nobody in Hollywood could have written a script this good. Except maybe for Charlie Sheen.