On Mar 8, 6:21=A0pm, CliffB wrote:
> Or just the usual sentimental nods and pet cause feel-good picks?
>
> Hurt Locker manic euphoria; Bullocks actually a "best actress" this
> year? Jeff Bridges may have deserved it for something, but was this
> it? (he for instance imo wasn't as good this year as Mickey Rourke was
>
> Maybe the over-all snubbing of Jim Cameron provided some kind of
> actual pleasure to the event........
In my view, it was all alright. "Hurt Locker" had more depth and
relativity than a bunch of blue-faced avatars enmeshed in FX
wonderland. Walz's comments about the Oscar being "uber bingo" was
fresh - you missed that, I guess. If Bullock and Bridges didn't earn
their Oscars for this year's efforts, there is precedence to give them
Oscars anyway - remember Liz Taylor getting one for "Butterfield 8?"
That was more a body-of-work award than one for that movie.
There were too many introductions of major award nominees, and Neil
Patrick Harris plus that stupid dance number should have been 86'd,
but other than that, I liked it all.
N. |
