Category Archives: Movie News and Articles

Movie Bloggers Roundtable

by

51

BANNER

The Movie Bloggers Roundtable is a new feature where I join up with four esteemed movie bloggers and we share our thoughts on a certain subject. Everyone on the panel will share their thoughts and feelings on the topic of the day and then we share them with you. The panel may change from post to post and hopefully we will get a wide range of opinions and perspectives.

Today’s roundtable discussion is a simple one but also one that I find very intriguing. Both Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson have movies due out in 2014. Both have received praise for their very unique styles of storytelling. So today we are going to focus on these two top-tier filmmakers. Joining this roundtable is Charles from Cinematic Film Blog, Caitlin from Heart of Cinema, Josh from J.James Reviews, and Nostra from MyFilmviews. Now I can easily say that I LOVE THESE BLOGGERS and if you haven’t been frequenting their sites you should. So this week’s question is a simple one:

Paul Thomas Anderson or Wes Anderson?

ANDERSONS

Keith (Keith & the Movies)

There were many things that drew me to asking the question. For me, both Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson are clearly and unquestionably talented filmmakers. They each know their craft and whenever their names are attached to a project it deserves attention. That being said, the two couldn’t have more different styles. PT Anderson takes a more salty, unflinching, and sometimes downright dirty approach to storytelling. Many of his films combine a rawness and eloquence – a combination that would otherwise seem impossible. Characters play a big role in a PT Anderson film and while I don’t always care for them, he has a way of making them compelling. Unfortunately for me not all of PTA’s pictures work in every regard. Take his highly praised “The Master”. It is a film featuring three entrancing performances but the story itself sputters under the director’s indulgence. I see that in other PTA films as well.

Then there is Wes Anderson, a gutsy filmmaker with a dedication to his unique style that could be perceived as overindulgent itself. Personally I find Wes Anderson’s style and method of storytelling to not only be unique but refreshing. He is a rare filmmaker who can actually make funny movies, something that has become a rarity these days. But there are always reocurring themes, some of them fairly dark, that Wes Anderson is able to poetically meld with his offbeat humor. Then there is his visual style which shows itself in odd period designs, a fascinating color palette, and careful attention to detail. All of these things come together to form truly satisfying cinematic experiences that I look forward to each time they hit the big screen.

So Paul Thomas or Wes? The funny thing is my favorite movie from either of their filmographies is unquestionably the brilliant “There Will Be Blood”. But when it comes to the films they have made and their individual cinematic styles the choice for me is an easy one. Wes Anderson makes me laugh, he makes me think, and he always makes me love being a movie fan. He may never direct a $800 million summer blockbuster but that is fine with me. He makes movies that I care about and I’m always wondering what he has in store for us next.

Charles (Cinematic)

Over the past two decades, few directors have created the impact in the movie world as the two Andersons (Paul Thomas and Wes). Both Andersons emerged in the mid-90s with big dreams set on filmmaking. Paul Thomas Anderson had gone to New York University to leave only after a few days after finding disgust with his film professors, deciding it was best to learn by himself. Wes attended the University of Texas where he met Owen Wilson, who co-wrote and starred in many of Wes’ projects. Paul and Wes’ first theatrical releases (Hard Eight and Bottle Rocket) came out around the same time (1996, though Hard Eight debuted at Cannes that year and entered screens in 1997). While neither picture was a box office hit, they helped launch both directors to greater funding for their sophomore projects. Paul Thomas Anderson’s follow-up to Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, a Martin Scorsese-Robert Altman-ish look at the adult film industry back in the 70s and 80s, brought the director to the film spotlight, with comparisons being made to GoodFellas and Short Cuts. Wes Anderson’s second picture, Rushmore, a coming of age story based on Wes’ and Wilson’s high school experiences, took a quirky look at teenage adolescence and became the template for the director’s future projects.

Since then, the two Andersons are certainly among the most influential people in contemporary cinema. Their style is so unique and just about impossible to imitate (how many filmmakers could make a picture in the same vein as There Will Be Blood or Moonrise Kingdom). While neither Anderson has received wide mainstream acceptance, both have proven themselves to be master directors.

While I’m a big fan of Wes Anderson and love the wildly idiosyncratic worlds he constructs, Paul Thomas Anderson would get my vote as the best filmmaker working today. Paul hasn’t made a single movie short of greatness and ambition. Even if you don’t like the unexpected climax of Magnolia or the dream-like pace of The Master, there’s no denial that Paul Thomas Anderson has put a hell lot of effort into his work. Wes has always been consistent as well and I will defend him to the edge (even The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, which I think is criminally underrated), but his movies don’t quite stir me up emotionally as Paul Thomas Anderson’s work.

Caitlin (Heart of Cinema)

Wes Anderson vs Paul Thomas Anderson seems like such a hard choice because of their completely different approaches to film-making. I love Wes Anderson’s style and aesthetic approach to his films – the use of colour/props/scenery/costume is all unique and instantly recognisable. On the other hand, Paul Thomas Anderson is clearly far less eccentric, more concerned with drama and strong characters (particularly in The Master and There Will Be Blood). I appreciate both styles and part of me thinks it is an impossible task to separate the two simply because of how different they are.
If I had to pick just one though, I think I would go with Wes – just because I can’t really think of anyone with a style like his whereas PTA could probably be compared in more ways to other directors. Wes is so distinctive and fun and I don’t think he lets the style overtake the substance with his films. There is always a good story and good cast behind the colour and eccentricity. Plus, I adore The Royal Tenenbaums and will never forget watching it for the first time!

Josh (J.James Reviews)

Wes Anderson or Paul Thomas Anderson? When Keith first asked the question, I had an immediate reaction: “Wes, obviously. No one would select Paul Thomas.” Then, while trying to explain my answer, I compared the two directors’ filmographies. While I haven’t yet seen Wes’ newly released The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) or PTA’s There Will be Blood (2007), I have seen the rest of their movies. I initially thought to argue that Wes’ best and worst are better than Paul Thomas’. Except I can’t honestly do so. While The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) and Moonrise Kingdom (2012) are truly terrific, so are Boogie Nights (1997) and Punch Drunk Love (2002). Plus, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) is probably a little worse than Magnolia (1999), though neither movie is bad, per se. Nor can I argue that Wes gets better performances from actors, or that he’s artistically superior. Both directors generate note-perfect performances from their cast. Just as both always use their medium deftly, to further their story and help cement intended emotion.
In other words, both Andersons are remarkable filmmakers whose films I always appreciate and often adore. Still, I prefer Wes. Why? It must be personal preference. In the end, I simply enjoy Wes’ quirkiness, humor and wit more than I enjoy Paul Thomas’ psychological acuity, nuanced characters and observational style. I cannot fairly say one is better than the other, but I can argue that one of them entertains me more. It mightn’t be the best reason, but it is the only one I have.

Nostra (MyFilmviews)

Answering the question which director I’d prefer is a difficult one, but not for the reason you might think. The reason why is a simple one: a couple of years ago I wasn’t a fan of either of these directors. Sure I enjoyed PT Anderson’s Magnolia (which I still plan on rewatching), but I never was as mesmerized by Boogie Nights as others had been. His Punch-Drunk Love (2002) I did not finish watching and although I have seen both his latest two movies, There Will Be Blood and The Master I will have to admit that I was not crazy about them. They are both beautiful movies to look at, but their stories are of the type you would mainly see in older movies. They remind me strongly of something Lawrence of Arabia, wanting to present something epic with a pacing we are not used to anymore. Although others might look forward to seeing his next movie Inherent Vice I will eventually will be checking it out, but won’t be in a rush to do so.
Then there is Wes Anderson. Except for Bottle Rocket I have seen all his feature films, but the movies he became big with were not the movies I got anything out of. Rushmore bored me, The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatica with Steve Zissou were simply too weird for me. It is with The Darjeeling Limited I slowly started enjoying his work and I feel that he has grown as a director in his career by making his movies more accessible. Although weird, Fantastic Mr. Fox, was a great movie. When I saw Moonrise Kingdom at a festival for the first time I realized that he is now a movie maker whose work I really appreciate. You will be able to recognize his style instantly: The way the camera moves, the use of color, constructed sets, symmetry. With the Grand Budapest Hotel it seems that all those elements came together perfectly and to me that movie is already one of my favorites this year.
So PT Anderson or Wes Anderson? I guess the answer is clear. Especially with his later work I think Wes Anderson makes movies I get a lot more enjoyment out of and in the end that is why I watch movies. Of course there is a time and place for watching the type of movies PT Anderson makes, but if you would put me in an empty cinema and force me to watch a movie from either director I would not have to think for very long.

So what is the consensus?

4 of 5 chose Wes Anderson over Paul Thomas Anderson

FOX DANCE

I want to thank Charles, Caitlin, Josh, and Nostra for participating in this second Movie Bloggers Roundtable. You have heard our thoughts, now we want to hear yours. Do you like the feature? More importantly, which of these two fantastic filmmakers do you prefer and why? I’m a bit surprised at the outcome. How about you? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

The Ten: Most Iconic Movie Characters Blogathon

by

39

 

The Ten Most Iconic Movie Characters Relay Race

I can’t tell you how excited I was when Nostra from My Filmviews asked me to be the first person to participate in his newest Blogathon Relay. If you aren’t familiar with My Filmviews it is a great place for movie reviews, features, and great actor/actress visual spotlights. Please check out the site. Trust me, it’s well worth it.

Nostra’s entire relay concept is brilliant and it’s one of my favorite ideas for a blogathon. This particular relay was very appealing to me. It revolves around the most iconic movie characters in cinema history. Ooooh this was tough for me. After a few days of laborious deliberation I had my choices narrowed to three: two who were sentimental favorites and the eventual winner.

Now before I jump in, here are the official blogathon rules from Nostra: A list of 10 iconic movie characters has been made. That list will be assigned to another blogger who can then change it by removing one character (describing why they think it should not be on the list) and replace it with another one (also with motivation) and hand over the baton to another blogger. Once assigned that blogger will have to put his/her post up within a week. If this is not the case the blogger who assigned it has to reassign it to another blogger. After you have posted your update leave the link in the comments here and I will make sure it gets added to the overview post.

Before I make my addition and subtraction let’s take a look at the list of iconic movie characters that currently occupy the Top Ten:

Indiana Jones

Ellen Ripley

Terminator

Darth Vader

James Bond

The Tramp

Tony Montana

E.T.

Rocky Balboa

Jules Winnfield

Definitely some iconic movie characters on this list and removing one proved to be more difficult than I imagined. I eventually narrowed it down to two. That didn’t make the choice any easier but such are the rules of the relay. Someone had to go.

REMOVED: Jules Winnfield

JULESYes that look he is giving scares me as I type this. Samuel L. Jackson without a doubt gives us an amazing character that really stood out in Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction”. But the word that kept sticking in my head was ICONIC. Winnfield is fun, entertaining, and you can’t take your eyes off of him, I’m not certain that I would place him among those who we call movie icons. When I think of the impact others from this list have made I just don’t think Jules quite makes it to that level. Great character but not quite iconic.

Whew, now that the unpleasant part is done we get to the equally difficult but much more enjoyable part. I get to add a replacement who I think truly represents a movie character icon.

ADDED: “Dirty” Harry Callahan

DIRTY HARRY

When I think of an iconic film character I think of someone who has become synonymous with movies and pop culture. Someone who was not only popular during their time but who still is well known and recognized today. One of my genuine favorites is “Dirty” Harry Callahan. Throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s Clint Eastwood starred as Callahan in five movies. As a grumpy, non-conformist San Francisco police inspector, Callahan blasted his way through police red tape and literally through an assortment of bad guys. Armed with his signature .44 Magnum and that unmistakable Clint squint, Callahan became a big screen icon who spanned two decades. He’s left us with so many memorable scenes and of course those memorable lines such as “Do you feel lucky, punk?” and “Go ahead, make my day.” If that doesn’t point to an iconic movie character I don’t know what does!

So there you have my subtraction and my replacement. Another special thanks to Nostra for including me. It was a ton of fun thinking this one over and coming to my conclusions. Now it is time for me to pass the torch. I’m happy to pass the baton to my pal Ruth from Flixchatter (click the banner to link to her phenomenal site).

FLIXRuth will not only bring in our first bit of female perspective but she also has a great taste in movies. I can’t what to see what she is going to bring to the table. Take it away Ruth!

K&M Commentary : Questionable Casting

by

21

typewriter-banner 1

Over the past few weeks several bits of big blockbuster casting news has made headlines and stirred up a great deal of discussion. One of the last commentaries I posted looked at movies and the books they are based on (you can find that post HERE). I talked about creative license and the space that should be given to a filmmaker when adapting a novel, comic series, etc. But I also talked about what I feel is the filmmaker’s responsibility to respect the source material and its spirit. These two particularly bits of casting news has me questioning just how much respect there is for the comic series’ they are based on.

Jesse Eisenburg as Lex Luthor

JESSEThe Superman/Batman film has ran the spectrum of fan reaction. I started off absolutely thrilled with the idea behind the project. I was also just fine with the announcement of Ben Affleck as Batman. But since then there have been little comments here and there, especially from Zack Snyder, that has me a bit worried. Then came the news that the iconic villain Lex Luthor had been cast. He would be played by Jesse Eisenburg – a good actor who mainly excels in specific types of roles. While I can see him playing Lex in a Smallville type project, I have a hard time seeing him embodying what has made Lex Luthor such a classic DC Comics villain.

What is more worrisome are statements made by Snyder surrounding Eisenberg’s casting such as taking the character in “unexpected directions”. Then there were the rumors (and I do emphasis rumors) of the character being a streetwise young man. Lex Luthor is an accomplished corporate tyrant and was never the geeky neurotic type that Eisenburg is good at playing. Snyder has hinted at completely changing up the character and his origin which doesn’t seem a bit necessary. I’m still anxious to see this picture but a hint of skepticism has certainly surfaced.

Michael B. Jordan & Kate Mara as Johnny & Sue Storm

Michael B. JordanThe other casting news surrounded 20th Century Fox’s reboot of the Fantastic Four franchise. Let me be honest, none of the four who were announced excite me at all. But there is one glaring problem that seems to stand out beyond the others. It’s the casting of Michael B. Jordan and Kate Mara as Johnny and Sue Storm. Now some will automatically assume that any criticism over this will either be normal fanboy rage or it will be because of race. To no surprise I’ve already read countless defenders of the casting pointing racially judgmental fingers at those of us who think the casting is bad.

maraSo what are my problems with the casting? First off I’ve never fully understood changing the race of a known character who is being borrowed from the original creator. That being said, if there is a better actor or actress who can strengthen the role on screen then race doesn’t matter at all. But in the Fantastic Four its quite different. Johnny and Sue are brother and sister with a rich background. By casting Jordan and Mara together the filmmakers are tossing that history aside to create their own. It’s a pointless and unnecessary change.

Between the two, Jordan intrigues me a lot more than Mara. So why not cast one of several talented black actresses to play Sue Storm and keep that defined brother/sister connection as a key part of their story? Look, I know there is adoption and biracial families which can explain away the differences. But frankly, I won’t be watching the Fantastic Four reboot for its deep and intellectual social and family commentary. This seems like a silly and unneeded move as well as a missed opportunity.

Obviously these are just first impressions. The filmmakers do know the story they are telling and maybe it will work out fine. But both of these castings look to be taking mammoth-sized creative liberties that really seem unnecessary. Are there attention-getting motivations behind them or are the filmmakers throwing aside the source material that made these characters worthy of big screen treatment. Time will certainly tell and regardless of my hesitation maybe these choices will work out.

THE END

REVIEW: “Rush”

by

39

RUSH POSTER

I’m not a racing fan so the story of Formula One rivals James Hunt and Niki Lauda was new to me. Ron Howard’s biographical sports film “Rush” tells the story of these two men and the rivalry that grew between them. Filmed with flash and gusto, “Rush” mixes common sports movie techniques with its more serious dramatic focus. The result is a film centered around an intriguing relationship between two racers that generally plays out fairly well. Unfortunately there are some kinks and wrinkles which keep the movie from being as smooth as it should have been.

Folks in Europe will be much more familiar with the story of Hunt and Lauda. These two championship racers were as different as night and day. James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) is a talented driver who is more interested in the excesses of alcohol and sex that accompany his fame. He flies by the seat of his pants both on and off the track. Niki Lauda (Daniel Brühl) has no interest in accolades or fame. He is a by-the-book fellow who takes a cold and calculated approach to everything he does from racing to relationships. According to the movie Hunt and Lauda get off on the wrong foot and their drastically different approaches to racing and life constantly clash.

Rush1

Interestingly neither of these characters are particularly likable. Peter Morgan’s script unveils their strong competitive wills which are inseparably tied to their inflated egos. They just show their haughtiness in different ways. But their rivalry takes a different turn during the 1976 Formula One season after Lauda is involved in a fiery crash. He is severely burned and faced with an excruciating rehabilitation. During this time Hunt is able to take the season points lead and looks to be on track for the championship. But only 42 days after his accident, Lauda attempts a comeback that defies all odds.

“Rush” offers a fascinating and personal story and we get hearty bites of it here and there. But there is a really odd structure to the film as a whole. A big hunk of the movie deals more with their individual rises to Formula One status. Sprinkled in are some brief run-ins they have and of course the races themselves. This does a good job of defining them and their vices but it also takes a lot of shortcuts. For example the two main female characters are shoehorned in and not given much to do at all. Olivia Wilde plays a supermodel who suddenly marries Hunt but later develops an off-screen romance with Richard Burton after being shunned by her husband. It’s a paper-thin side story. Equally underdeveloped is Lauda’s quick marriage to Marlene (Alexandra Maria Lara). The couple do get a few good moments but she is mostly reserved to standing at his races looking terribly concerned.

rush3

Speaking of those races, they are some of the most exhilarating race sequences ever put on screen. Ron Howard’s energetic and pulse-pounding perspectives truly are amazing to watch. Also a ton of credit has to go to the editing team of Daniel Hanley and Mike Hill. Far too often race or car chase sequences are chopped up into pieces making it almost impossible to discern what is going on. Hanley and Hill never make that mistake. Howard’s vigorous touches and technical flare gels perfectly with his editors’ approach to create some truly intense racing action. Howard also has a ton of fun playing in the whole 1970s period whether it’s the hair, the wardrobes, or the atmosphere. It looks great and I loves all of that stuff.

But back to the film’s structure. Lauda’s wreck and attempted recovery (which features prominently in the trailer and in the real life story) feels under-served. It does play an important part in changing the direction of the plot but it felt like there was much more there to explore. There were also several sports movie gimmicks that are frequently used. For example most of the races are shown with the voiceover of a highly dramatic announcer. The amazing visuals reveal to us the immense danger, the sometimes terrible weather conditions, etc. But that doesn’t stop the announcer from ratcheting up ever ounce of drama.

Rush2

The real statement of the film comes from Chris Hemsworth. He more known for his role as the musclebound hammer-wielding Thor from the Marvel movies, but here he shows a definite range that may come as a surprise to some people. He jumps headfirst into Hunt’s life of overindulgence and he never oversells it. Brühl clearly is working hard but ultimately I think he is shortchanged by Peter Morgan’s script. He definitely has some strong moments but more often I found him to be a bit dull. It’s hard to put the bulk of the blame on him though.

Overall “Rush” is a sports biopic that doesn’t full utilize the intriguing story it is based on. That’s not to say it’s a bad film. The are some good dramatic moments and the race scenes are things of fuel-injected beauty. But there are some narative hiccups and I just can’t help but think the film could have better used its time. For example, maybe a few less music video-styled sex scenes and more time spent on the two main female characters. I just feel that there is more to this story that could have been told and ultimately that left me wanting.

FLAG1

Know Your Movies – Three Hints, One Image

by

42

MOVIES

It can’t only be reviews, Phenomenal 5 lists, and commentaries, right? Know Your Movies is all about having fun. Here’s how it works: I’ll share a single shot from a movie. It can be extremely serious or completely absurd. After that I’ll provide you with three hints. The rest is up to you. Hop in the comments section and share your guess as well as any thoughts or memories you have on the movie, actor/actress, or the scene itself. It should be a blast.

Today’s image is from a film that has become a true classic. So here’s the shot. Three hints will follow.

REAR

Hint 1: Released in 1954

Hint 2: The entire film was shot on one huge set

Hint 3: Received four Academy Award nominations

Now head to the comments and share your guess. Pretty obvious, right? I would also love to hear your thoughts on the film, the scene, or anything else related to it. The correct answer will be announced first on my Twitter feed tomorrow (@KeithandMovies for those who want to follow). Now feel free to guess and discuss this movie classic.

The Oscars Rundown…

by

56

The 85th Academy Awards® will air live on Oscar® Sunday, February 24, 2013.

For weeks my fellow movie fans and I have talked about, wrote about, predicted, and anxiously awaited the Academy Awards and their celebration of the 2013 movie year. Well, just like that they have come and gone. On Sunday night Hollywood put on their best suits, best dresses, blinding bling, and headed to the biggest show of the year. Quite a bit of intrigue had built up leading up to show and we were left with plenty to talk about. So lets hop right into it. Here are a few thoughts in my Oscars Rundown:

  • Overall it was a pretty predictable show once again. I and many others perfectly predicted the major writing, acting, directing categories as well as Best Picture. Why are the Academy Awards so predictable? Is it because of our easy access to all of the other awards shows which usually frames the Oscar winners? Or does it reveal something within the Academy’s voting system?
  • “12 Years a Slave” joins the celebrated list of Oscar Best Picture winners. Personally I think “Gravity” is a better film, but I have no problem with “12 Years a Slave” winning. It has its flaws (I’m looking at you Brad Pitt) but it is still a powerful and piercing film that people will still be talking about 10 years from now.
  • I loved seeing Alfonso Cuaron win the Oscar for Best Director. What he accomplished with “Gravity” was monumental. The visuals were jaw-dropping and what he and his crew did to advance special effects is incredible. But it is also an emotionally satisfying story that hooked me from the start. Cuaron was the anchor.
  • “American Hustle” was tied with “Gravity” for the most nominations. In the end the David O. Russell ensemble piece went home empty-handed. Honestly I had no problem with that. For me “American Hustle” stands out only for its performances and they weren’t strong enough to beat out the more deserving ones. It’s a decent movie but it’s not one with much staying power.
  • I have to say I was sorely disappointed with how the Best Documentary category turned out. “20 Feet from Stardom” won the Oscar and it’s a nice little film. But there is no way it is as powerful or as important as “The Square” or “The Art of Killing”.
  • To my surprise Ellen DeGeneres wasn’t terrible. Her humor was a bit hit or miss but as a whole she was pretty good. She kept things lively and the participation she pulled from the audience was a lot of fun. She also managed several good laughs. Not the best host but better than I was expecting.
  • Bummed that “Nebraska” didn’t take home at least one Oscar but to be honest it wasn’t surprising. It was a long shot for every category it was nominated in. Still it was a tremendous film featuring a wonderful story, really good performances, and gorgeous cinematography. I’m thankful Oscar at least recognized it with some nominations.
  • This was an Oscar night of wonderful speeches. The two real standouts came from Lupita Nyong’o and Matthew McConaughey. Nyong’o poured out her heart and everyone could sense the appreciation and pure joy through her words. McConaughey was just a blast. He talked about what inspired him. He made it personal and heartfelt by thanking God and his family. These were just two of the many great speeches.
  • I’m still frustrated over “The Hunt” not earning more than one Oscar nomination. I was even more bummed when it lost out in its lone category – Best Foreign Language Film. “The Hunt” was a phenomenal film and it deserved a lot more recognition from the Academy than it was given.
  • Cate Blanchett was one of the more obvious winners of the night but it was such a well deserved win. She was incredible to watch as she fleshed out her fractured and emotionally complex character. Blanchett also gave us a great acceptance speech which was a real treat.
  • Everyone knew Jared Leto was going to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar so it came as no surprise when his name was announced. But I still wanted Michael Fassbender to get it. Leto was good but it was Fassbender’s work that had the bigger effect on me out of the two. Hopefully Fassy won’t have to wait a long time to win like someone else we know (right Leo?).
  • I gotta admit the mass “selfy” (which was photo-bombed by Kevin Spacey) was actually pretty funny. It certainly brought a brief halt to my live tweeting!
  • Family seemed to be a reoccurring theme throughout the Oscars. So many “thank you’s” went out to family members but there were also many people who brought their mothers, fathers, daughters, brothers, or sisters with them. It was really cool to see.
  • Some people don’t care for the “In Memorium” segment of the Oscars but I actually love them. So many greats were mentioned including Fontaine, Ebert, Gandolfini, Temple-Black, Hoffman, and Ramis just to name a few. But may I ask where was Dennis Farina??? Seriously Academy???
  • Wasn’t a bit weird that the Razzie winning actor Will Smith was selected to present the Best Picture Oscar?
  • The Oscars are always criticized for going so long and ending so late. Here’s a possible solution. Don’t wait to start the show at 8:30 Eastern/7:30 Central. I know it’s out on the West Coast but I bet the celebs could get there a little earlier.
  • I would have loved to hear John Travolta announce Chiwetel Ejiofor!

So those are just a few thoughts on cinema’s biggest night of the year. What stood out to you? Did you enjoy the show? Please take some time to share your thoughts on this year’s Academy Awards. They will be back around before you know it. See you then!

THE END