Academy Award Loser of the Zeros
I was looking over the winners of the Academy Awards over the last 5 years and was surprised by their run-of-the millness
2000: Gladiator
2001: Beautiful Mind
2002: Chicago
2003: Lord of The Rings #3
2004: Million Dollar Baby
I didn't think they all were bad movies (and quite liked all of the Lord of The Rings), but they all seem to be either upbeat or basic dramas. And this is after art house flicks like The English
Patient, Shakespeare in Love, and American Beauty were stealing the prize. So I guess there is 2 things I'm wondering. (1) Why was their turn to voting for the more mainstream and (2) which one is the worst?
I really am not sure what happened. I want to blame it on George W, but my thesis is kind of incomplete. I think it may have been a bit of a backlash against the darkness of American Beauty, but was their a reason we as a country liked these more? I do find it interesting that we seem to be slipping back with this year's candidates being all pretty dark
In terms of which one is the worst, it is hard for me to say. Million Dollar Baby, sticks out in
my head right now because I'm still smarting over how that run-of-the-mill movie pulled it off by playing the euthanasia card. But that movie wasn't so bad. Gladiator was so overwhelming that I got bored, but I seem to be the only person ever with that reaction. I want to pick Beautiful Mind, because I hated it and it's always recommended to me b/c I'm a math teacher. But I haven't actually seen it, so that's probably not a legit vote. Therfore, I guess I'll cast my vote for Chicago, which not only starred the creepy gerbil-infested Richard Gere, but was a musical for christ sakes.
2000: Gladiator
2001: Beautiful Mind
2002: Chicago
2003: Lord of The Rings #3
2004: Million Dollar Baby
I didn't think they all were bad movies (and quite liked all of the Lord of The Rings), but they all seem to be either upbeat or basic dramas. And this is after art house flicks like The English
Patient, Shakespeare in Love, and American Beauty were stealing the prize. So I guess there is 2 things I'm wondering. (1) Why was their turn to voting for the more mainstream and (2) which one is the worst?I really am not sure what happened. I want to blame it on George W, but my thesis is kind of incomplete. I think it may have been a bit of a backlash against the darkness of American Beauty, but was their a reason we as a country liked these more? I do find it interesting that we seem to be slipping back with this year's candidates being all pretty dark
In terms of which one is the worst, it is hard for me to say. Million Dollar Baby, sticks out in
my head right now because I'm still smarting over how that run-of-the-mill movie pulled it off by playing the euthanasia card. But that movie wasn't so bad. Gladiator was so overwhelming that I got bored, but I seem to be the only person ever with that reaction. I want to pick Beautiful Mind, because I hated it and it's always recommended to me b/c I'm a math teacher. But I haven't actually seen it, so that's probably not a legit vote. Therfore, I guess I'll cast my vote for Chicago, which not only starred the creepy gerbil-infested Richard Gere, but was a musical for christ sakes.
posted by chuckdaddy2000 at 6:15 pm
3 Comments:
I'm with you on "Gladiator", Chuckdaddy. It was a no better than competant movie, and it definitely plodded. After it won Best Movie, I pretty much wrote off the Oscars.
Chicago. So bad.
Crash. Even worse.
The Academy has no crediblity.
Now now Chuckdaddy - there's nothing wrong with a little Gerbil lovin'. Richard Gere can be rightfully bashed for being a vacuous Hollywood nincompoop, but we shouldn't knock him for his Gerbil tricks - that stuff takes talent!
Regarding Million Dollar Baby - what a piece of by the numbers crap. Swank did NOT deserve an Oscar for that, and the whole movie was one long chiche ridden wannna-be-heart-string tugger that flopped hard. Why does Morgan Freeman do that crap?
Post a Comment
<< Home