The 83rd Annual Academy Awards

This review is probably going to be a lot shorter than other years, simply because nothing too extraordinary happened and I also really haven't got much to complain about.

Yes, this was actually a good year for the Oscar's, show-wise. It seems to me that what they did this year was going back to the Annual Academy Awards shows of the past 10 years and simply looked at what worked and what didn't and also to the criticism of the viewing audiences from all over the world, from the past few years. This has as a result that the show featured some of the best elements of the past few years and also made some minor adjustments. For instance a thing they kept in was the award presenter directly talking to the best actor/actress in a leading role nominees and complimenting their work. All of the presenters in general also had their little say and moment, as opposed to other years when at times presenters were just walking on to the stage and immediately announcing the nominees and eventual winner. Also the cinematic opening is back, in which the hosts show up in scene's from the nominated movies and take a comical swing on it. They also adjusted the in memoriam section, so that all names could be read of the screen this time, while at other years lots of people were complaining that some names could not be seen because of the way the segment got filmed, with inserted close-ups of the singer or a musical instrument player.

But some of the changes were also less notable and more subtly inserted. One thing that I noticed was that this year it really only was about the nominated movies and the nominees in the audiences. There were no Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, Sean Penn, Robert De Niro, Mickey Rooney or anyone like that present, at least not that we ever saw. The show and the camera's only ever focused on this years nominees and not on the usual and well known Hollywood names or stars from the past and previous well known winners.

Obviously all a part of the attempts to keep the show fresh and to also focus on a more younger audience. Something they also really tried hard last year but this year works out way better because it's all done in a less desperate and just less obvious way.

But speaking of young, how about that Kirk Douglas? That was perhaps the biggest surprise of the evening. The 95-year old former Hollywood star and pretty boy handing out an award for supporting actress, despite his age and his psychical difficulties, relating to a stroke he suffered from over a decade ago already. It was not only wonderful to see him on stage but he also truly was the best and genuinely most fun part of the evening. He was not the oldest person to appear on stage day. The exactly 367 days older Eli Wallach also showed up briefly, due to him receiving the special honorary award this year, among others.

I have to admit that this has been the only year of which I literally have not seen one of the nominated movies, in any of the categories. Needless to say that I also didn't had a favorite for the win but yet also none of the winners surprised me. The wins for Natalie Portman and Christian Bale were pretty much set and it was also no great surprise "The King's Speech" eventually won for best picture, as well as within the other big categories, considering that it had also already won at the previous big award ceremonies. All of the other 'less' important awards were pretty much divided among the other favorite movies ("The Social Network", "The Fighter"), as well as amongst the more technical and visual movies of this year ("Inception", "Alice in Wonderland").

I think that this year also really showed that it really doesn't matter too much who is the host or hosts in this case. Anne Hathaway and James Franco weren't anything too fun or specular but they weren't anything too shockingly horrible either, though Franco seemed to had taken one or two calming tablets too many, a few drinks too much and a couple of hours of sleep too few, since he looked pretty much zoned out on the stage. But like I said, it really doesn't matter too much who is hosting it on the stage. It's an award show, that should foremost be about its nominees and winners and the only job of the hosts is to talk between the different segments and categories and bring it all together. If he/she does this well and hopefully also somewhat funny, it only makes the evening a more pleasant one but it doesn't make or brake the actual award show. It's a long award show, that also features lots of not so interesting categories and winners, so calling this show slow or boring in my opinion actually has very little to do with the way the entire show gets done. There have been years with lots of spectacular dancing and sining numbers, plenty of montages concerning movies, comical routines from some of the movie stars, people honoring the stars from the past but people were still considering those years the show to be bad and boring as well.

In other words; people will always keep on complaining about these sort of award shows. I personally think they were taking the right approach this time. And at least this year didn't caused any upset with any of its winners as well, which can be seen as arguably a both a good and a bad thing though really.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I shouldn't say this is the worst Oscars telecast ever simply because I have not seen them all, but I can definitely say beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is probably the single worst Oscars telecast that I have watched.

The main problem was co-host James Franco. His co-host was left to try to clean up after him and make the best of an awful show without any help from his whatsoever. The opening number was kind of okay but after that it seemed like he was a bored and incredibly boring, drunk and-or high idiot who didn't have a clue what he was doing and didn't care how bad he did or how bad the show got.

I hope they never have him back. I think he was easily worse than the worst Whoopi Goldberg hosting job and I would have thought that would be impossible.

I have looked forward to the Academy Awards telecast every year for as long as I can remember and I am 57. The best part of this particular year was replaying Bob Hope EmCeeing ("Master of Ceremonies"), and being introduced by one of the very best more recent EmCee's, Billy Crystal. However, showing those two, merely made the point that this year was a disaster.

It was not the fault of Anne Hathaway and James Franco, I don't believe. It was the writing behind it all. Hathaway and Franco tried so hard. And a good EmCee should never have to do that. By comparison to the telecasts of the Golden Globes, SAGs, and BAFTA Award shows of this year, the "Oscars" were pretty pitiful. The writers took away so many of the awards formerly given at the big night, and put them in special, separate ceremonies. One would think that this would shorten the length of the "Oscar Night" show, yet it did not. I found it an especially *bad* decision that they separated out the "Lifetime Achievement Award" and the "Irving Thalberg Award" from that special night. It was a disgrace.

I also found it irritating that Halle Berry got to give a special "In memoriam" to her idol, Lena Horne, yet there was nothing special for that absolutely, spectacularly special movie musician, John Barry. Jane Seymour was a personal friend. She could have been asked to give a special tribute to him. The BAFTA show had one of his award winning pieces behind their montage of those who passed away. I know Barry was English, but he won four Oscars, and countless other music, film, and television music awards here in the USA.

Here is a thought for next year...Tina Fey. Or Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin (both have been in movies). Or Tina Fey and Steve Carell (both have been in movies). Or Tina Fey and *anybody else*!!!. Those people are naturally funny, can wing it like Crystal used to, they can write their own stuff, or make someone else's funny, and they all know how to behave as Master (or Mistress) of Ceremonies!!!!

After panning last years Academy Awards program, I was quite pleased with this year's efforts on a number of levels. Hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco were a refreshing duo after last years debacle. I felt that it was a mistake last year to have co-hosts but Anne and James gave it their best and succeeded in every respect. I guess you have to have the right co-hosts. The writing was also crisper and there were no lame insulting jokes which, last year, only made the audience and viewers cringe and feel uncomfortable and left a bitter aftertaste. I apologize for comparing this year to last year's but can't help it because this year's show let's us all know how enjoyable and fun the program can be in the right hands. It appears as if The Academy listened to the critics from last year's program and made several changes which only enhanced this year's program.

The Memorial was especially touching and respectful this year and I was pleased to see that a perfect song was added and that, for the first time, the audience showed respect by not clapping at familiar names. I would love to know if, during the break or in written communications, the audience was told to not applaud or if they held the applause because Celine Dion was singing. In any event, it was about time. I agree with other reviewers that a few notable names were omitted.

I liked the tasteful homage to some of the old films, performers and hosts. Think that should be a staple of the Oscars. Good form to have Sandra Bullock, the highlight of last year's show, present the Best Actor award. I am also glad that the program did not try to do something weird with the best film scores and just showed how they sounded in and impacted the films.

I gave this year's Academy Awards an "8" and would have given it a higher rating except the sound mixing was messed up on the music, at least on my home theater system - not sure if that was due to editing a certain comment earlier. I also missed the thumbnail descriptions of the documentaries and international films. Can't recall if they were included last year.

All in all, though, this year's program was a noble effort and breezy show which only tended to enhance the suspense of the awards presentation.

The only times I tune into the Oscars is to find out who wins the acting awards and who made and who didn't make the In Memoriam tribute.

I suppose the reason why some acting luminaries are omitted is that too much emphasis is laid on to the deceased, who because of their occupations (screen writers, hairdressers, wardrobe, cinematography, and so forth) must be considered relevant, even though their screen time (aside from the credits at the beginning and/or ending of the film)are, to me, at least, unimportant. For example, I have barely heard of Theoni V. Aldredge, aside from the fact he created the costumes for the "Ghostbusters" movies.

The Oscars are all about the movie industry - the actors, the composers, the directors, that is all I care about. John Barry, Blake Edwards and the other featured in the directing/music category deserve to be remembered.

Then we come to the stars themselves: the overlooked:

Peter Graves - Leslie Nielsen (a co-star of his in the Airplane movies) was remembered, yet he was not. Betty Garrett Corey Haim Lisa Blount Kenneth Mars Janet MacLachlan Rue McClanahan George DiCenzo James Gammon Michele Nicastro and others supposedly too nondescript to rate an honour.

There may be others, lost and eventually forgotten, but the contributions of most of these stars of the stage, the screen and TV are, perhaps, of more importance than those whose connections to the movie-making medium are, tangential, to say the least.