Oscar

Meh. I really can't think of anything else to sum up the Oscars. But let's try.

I didn't see any of the movies nominated for anything, which is really more depressing than I thought before typing that sentence. So I wasn't particularly invested. Not that I usually am, anyway. There's usually one or two movies that I hope win for whatever reason and I am momentarily annoyed when it doesn't (similar to the Westminster Dog Show, but I am pleased with this year's winner, the Beagle). But there were so many things wrong with this year's show.

1. Not enough montages. Apparently if the writer's strike hadn't ended, they had prepared a bunch of montages to fill the time. When done right, movie montages highlight everything that's great about the movies. We got a couple of joke montages, the binoculars thing and the waking from a dream montage, both of which were actually kind of cool and among the more enjoyable aspects of this year's show. It seemed they were moving more toward montages the last few years, but this year most of them were montages of past Oscar winners accepting their awards.

2. Not enough funny. All in all, the Oscars are about entertainment. I know people watch to see who wins and to see what people are wearing and crap, but it's still an awards show, hosted by a comedian. It's supposed to be an entertaining three hours. But there was a decided lack of comedy routines by the presenters. This is, of course, a double-edged sword, since they are often incredibly unfunny. I think the only time I laughed was during Seth Rogen and Jonah Fat Guy's Halle Berry-Dame Judi Dench bit.

3. Too many awards. I'm not saying they shouldn't acknowledge their achievement. But most of the nominees in the more technical categories are from movies normal people have never heard of. They need to cut down on the time it takes to present these (I mean, do we really need presenters telling us how important costume designers are every year? These are perfect opportunities for more funny).

4. No "Wow" moments. It's a once-a-year event, can't they try to faciliate a few more special moments that people will remember for years? See, you never get that with the technical or artsy awards, because the artsy fartsy types are way too into their work and don't seem to take nearly enough joy in winning. And when they do, they're not articulate enough or entertaining enough to make the moment memorable. So that leaves you with the acting, writing, directing, and best movie categories, which isn't much. But there was just nothing memorable about this year, partially because there were no big surprises.

5. Lackluster In Memoriam. A little morbid, perhaps. But even Heath Ledger didn't get much applause. Usually there's one or two actors and a director who get a huge pop. Ingmar Bergman got decent applause. But otherwise, it was fairly tame, with very few big names making the cut. Which is either a good thing because it means the older generation is living longer or it's a bad thing because all the great old actors have already passed away and now we have the leftovers.

This is something that really concerns me and let me explain why. Do you ever stop and think about the great actors and actresses and directors, particularly the younger ones? Can you imagine 50 years from now seeing them during the In Memoriam or during montages of Oscars past and thinking about how great they were? I don't think you can. Now, I realize this is nothing more than a romanticization of the past, but it certainly seems like the great actors today don't evoke the same response as those of yesterday.

*****

In related news, who the crap is greenlighting movies?

The Hottie and the Nottie: Paris Hilton in a romantic comedy as her ugly friend gains acceptance and finds love. Yes, really.

Larry the Cable Guy's movie: I actually think his standup is decent but he shouldn't be acting in, let alone starring in, any movies. I bet he makes at least one more before he settles into a nice, Jim Varney direct-to-video career.

Never Back Down: Some background about me: Before Fight Club was released, I saw a trailer in the theatre. I knew absolutely nothing about it, except it was about guys fighting and it was called Fight Club. I mean, based on just that synopsis, you couldn't possibly expect anything from it. Little did I know that it was based on a novel and would turn out to be a kickass movie. But I've had the same reaction to Never Back Down. It's about some new kid in school who fights people in fight club like fights.

47 different dance movies: Apparently there's a market for these, but I can't imagine who that might be.

Penelope: This movie is going to be huge. It has a great cast. But still, it's about an ugly girl gaining acceptance and finding love. Is there no originality? At its most basic level, it's pretty similar to The Hottie and the Nottie. Funny world, Hollywood is.

You Don't Mess with the Zohan: Adam Sandler's latest, written by Judd Apatow. I like most of Judd Apatow's work, and Adam Sandler is one of the few guaranteed draws in Hollywood. As one of my friends said after seeing the trailer during the Super Bowl, "America will go see this." And it's true. It may have looked terribly unfunny and contrived, but it's almost a guaranteed $100 million.

It's just remarkable to me how much crap gets made. But there has been a huge push of late towards the plotless, random event movies, that started with Napoleon Dynamite and Anchorman and continues with most of Apatow's, Seth Rogen's, Steve Carrell's, and Will Ferrell's movies. And since they don't use convention as a crutch, they usually end up being pretty good movies.

Of course, I'm still the guy who thought Fight Club looked stupid, so what do I know?