March 2, 2010

We continue with the Who Will Win/Should Win series, and more on the Main Page!

Indeed, we have the second in our series on Who Will Win/Who Should Win the Oscars. The newest article can be found here, and keep your eyes open for more in the coming days!
We also have an article detailing some of the worst winners of the Best Picture prize in the history of the Oscars. The article is found here and is a good jumping off point for debate, so take a gander and let us know your picks.
Finally, we made sure we sought out The Secret of Kells to give the mysterious film a review, and we now have one for you here. Enjoy!
-Thoughts on the updates?


  1. Personally, I disagree with what was written in the actress section of the will win/should win. I don't think Bullock should be judged on anything but her acting in The Blind Side. We all agree she put out some terrible films, but in my opinion she did an excellent job in Blind Side and that's what she's nominated for not All About Steve. If you don't like her performance in The Blind Side that's understandable, but I don't understand why everyone will be so mad if she wins.

  2. I can only speak for myself, but I liked Bullock quite a bit in The Blind Side...

  3. I disagree with Keith on his argument that The Hurt Locker's screenplay was its weak link. I actually think that it's the film's most underrated aspect. Here is a movie without gratuitous, self-conscious dialogue that calls attention to itself, and while that kind of writing may not win awards, it is just as essential to the atmosphere of The Hurt Locker that Keith praises. Factor in astute observations about the war without being didactic (Paul Haggis could learn a thing or two from Mark Boal) and you have a screenplay that is just as Oscar-worthy as the other four nominees, if not more so.

    I'm also troubled by his belief that Bullock shouldn't win because of the bad movies she's headlined in the past. The Oscars should only evaluate her work in The Blind Side to determine if she should win this year. Period. While I think it's a weak performance overall (though not the weakest of the nominees; that "honor" goes to Helen Mirren's unbearable histrionics in The Last Station), the idea that she shouldn't win because of Speed 2 is absurd to me. That's like saying Heath Ledger shouldn't have won Best Supporting Actor last year because of The Order or The Four Feathers. It just shouldn't be a factor.

    John Foote's list is pretty good, though I would add that His Girl Friday would have also been a great choice for Best Picture in 1940 instead of Rebecca. It's also worth noting that the producer (Arthur Freed) and the star (Gene Kelly) of An American in Paris would be a part of Singin' in the Rain a year later, which was devoid of a Best Picture nomination. He and I have debated the merits - or lack thereof - of The Passion of the Christ in the past, so I won't go into that again. I will, however, take exception to his belief that Trainspotting, a good if somewhat overrated film (His favorite of 2000 is Requiem for a Dream, his favorite of 1996 is Trainspotting...he seems to have a soft spot for films about drug addiction), was the best of its year instead of what I always just assumed was a universal classic though I guess there are a lot of people who don't think so: Fargo. That film, to me, was a near-perfect dark comedy that should have dominated the Oscars that year. I would then just add that Raiders of the Lost Ark was also better than Chariots of Fire and that Crash warrants a mention along with a Beautiful Mind (far worse winners than The English Patient, in my opinion), and with those personal asterisks, a pat on the back for another though-provoking list from Mr. Foote!

  4. poor attempt at humor. i don't care if she wins.

  5. I have actually seen every best picture winner, so I have some insight here. It is difficult to pick a top ten, but a general chronological list of winners that are just bad/dated/offences to the art would be like this:

    Broadway Melody (1928/29)
    Still too early in the sound era for a musical. Suffers terribly in comparison to late silent movies. Dated.

    Cimarron (1930/31)
    Great opening scene, but hopelessly muddled after that, and shockingly racist in a condescending way with incredibly loyal but stupid negro servants and idealised native americans. Incidentally Grand Hotel won between the first two films, and that is still a very watchable film.

    Cavalcade (1932/33)
    Incredibly dated, and incredibly reactionary when it comes to things like the blurring of class distinction. An abomination.

    Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
    Dull with a big D, and worthy with a big W. Like attending a workshop on anti-semitism and being lectured to for two hours.

    Around the world in 80 days (1956)
    Well, at least the actors seemed to have fun. No wonder it won, almost everyone in Hollywood was in it or knew someone who was in it.

    Tom Jones (1963)
    The archetype of the wave of british sex comedies in the late 60s and early 70s. A great hunting scene, but the rest is best forgotten.

    Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
    Ok tv-movie, but best picture? Really?!

    Titanic (1997)
    I wanted to like it, but Cameron just couldn't handle writing dialogue that wasn't about kicking ass. Everything around the actors are great, but the actors themselves and what they are saying are an affront to cinema. Avatar is actually much more worthy, but this is the reason I wouldn't want him to win: He hasn't atoned yet.

    Crash (2005)
    Not actually all terrible, but there are no real characters, just sophomoric lessons about racism. The modern day version of Gentleman's Agreement.

    The Departed (2006)
    A huge disappointment. Scorsese won for his least personal movie just because it reminded people of the better movies he used to make. A very average movie, but Scorsese winning for this is a travesty.

    To be fair there are winners that are objectively worse than the last few on the list, but at least they don't make me angry.