Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Article IndexBY JOE TYRRELL
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
This year's Academy Awards may not be better than ever, but they are bigger. In an effort to boost box office, the academy distributed more than five Best Picture nominations for the first time since 1943. With more to sort through, NewJerseyNewsroom.com asked our movie reviewers to separate those films that blew up from those that merely bombed.
Anthony Stoeckert: The funny thing is that the Academy expanded the field in order to bring more popular movies into the mix and drum up more interest in the broadcast. But that would have happened anyway this year because "Avatar" is the kind of groundbreaking, blockbuster movie that can do that – and it certainly would have been nominated without the rule change.
Miriam Rinn: It seems to me that even expanding the list to 10 doesn't change the traditionally mediocre cast of the selections.
"Avatar" was lovely to look at and technologically dazzling, but the dopey story got dopier as it went along.Joe Tyrrell: Of course, there are also the untraditionally mediocre selections, cue "Inglourious Basterds." So is the Academy's unintentional message: We've got plenty of nothing?
MR: "Up in the Air" would have been a by-the-numbers romantic comedy if the director hadn't noticed the economy crashing and included those mesmerizing shots of real people. "An Education" boasted some fine performances but got weaker two-thirds of the way through. What can one say about the inclusion of "The Blind Side" or "Precious"?
AS: Ten nominations probably helped "The Blind Side" and "District 9" get into the race, but how many people will watch the show because of them? The audience for "The Blind Side" is largely female, and women tend to watch the Oscars anyway. And I can't imagine anyone tuning in solely because they want to see if "District 9" wins.
JT: Agreed that aside from the primarily technical achievements of "Avatar," this wasn't a year for epochal feature films. But what did you like?
Nancy Mandell: The best movie I saw last year was "A Serious Man." But I confess to surprise that it even made the expanded nominations. For everyone I know who loved it, I know one who hated – or was offended by it. I really believe you should be able to recommend the "Best Picture" to your readers, your friends, your relatives, without having to carefully prepare them first. I guess, then, that my choice is "Avatar" for being the fully, successfully realized vision of its creator, who used advances in (computer generated) technique to tell a story (yes, a dopey story), not just to demonstrate that technique.
AS: The best movie I saw in 2009 was "Up." What's funny to me is that it really is a strange movie, about a senior citizen who's disappointed with the world and attaches balloons to his house so that he can place his wife's ashes in South America. He encounters his (now deranged) hero and talking dogs. Yet because it's Pixar, it's regarded as a safe, mainstream movie. It's really about seeing life itself as a journey and touches upon real emotions in a way few movies have.
MR: "The Hurt Locker" is an intelligent action movie, but it didn't have the emotional impact of "The Messenger," a much quieter film on the impact of war. The most daring and thought provoking film on the Best Picture list is "A Serious Man," a surprising effort from the Coen brothers, who managed to combine social satire, philosophical inquiry, and genuine human feeling (not something they're known for) in this one. And that's about as likely to win as I am to put "Final Destination" on my Netflix queue.
JT: It's a golden age of documentaries, and the best movies I saw were "Burma VJ," "Food Inc.," "The Cove" and "American Casino," the last not even nominated. In the fictional world, I admire "A Serious Man" to an extent, but with all the caveats Nancy mentioned. So I'm with splendidly stupid-but-beautiful "Avatar," which makes a trip to the movies worthwhile.
MR: Don't forget "Anvil," which was hilarious, moving and totally surprising. And "Soul Power" was a great use of extra footage. If this becomes a trend among documentaries, who knows what we'll get.
AS: And what about the best animated field this year? I think "Up" is clearly the best movie (I actually named it the best movie of the decade on my blog), but part of me would like see "Fantastic Mr. Fox" or "Coraline" win because their styles are more original.
JT: "Up" has the best opening 20 minutes of any movie here, but I prefer the handmade charms of "Coraline" to more machine-tooled animation.
AS: Another observation: When the decision to enlarge the field was announced, there was a lot of speculation that "Star Trek" would benefit. Am I the only one who thinks "District 9" got the "geek slot" because of its symbolism and because it has Peter Jackson behind it, while "Star Trek" is a pure entertainment directed by a guy (J.J. Abrams) who's most famous for his TV shows?
JT: "District 9" isn't a best picture, but at least it has a point. I recommend a strict dosage limit on J.J. Abrams. Individual episodes of his shows can be wildly entertaining, just ignore the incoherent storylines. "Star Trek" is like his shows but more so: big, exciting set pieces, and the occasional sly turn by a cast member, but incomprehensibly dumb.
AS: What about voting for an actor's career as much as for the specific performance? Jeff Bridges is the favorite for Best Actor because of that. Even though I think Jeremy Renner gave a better performance, I'd like to see Bridges win. I think it's a good thing that John Wayne beat Hoffman back in '69 or '70, he's one of the all-time stars, and Hoffman went on to win two Oscars. And it's also good that Henry Fonda won one, even if "On Golden Pond" was late in his career and not his best performance.
