Powered by TypePad

« Belgravitas - Getting Excited About Beirut | Main | James Guckert Update »

February 28, 2005

Comments

Ted Barlow

You might have missed Whoopi Goldberg and David Letterman's stints at hosting. Letterman at least had his own dada style, even if he wasn't especially funny. Whoopi, on the other hand, seemed ready to implode a flash of infinite smug self-regard. To paraphrase StrongBad, "Whoopi Goldberg needed two writers. One to not think of something funny, and one to think of something not funny."

TM

Actually, I saw them both, and they were down there. One was awful, and one was miserable, but I forget which was which. Other than Billy Crystal, this job can't be done (Jon Stewart, your public is waiting... And how did Steve Martin do - didn't he take a turn?).

My fave moment last night was the tribute to Johnny Carson, partly because Carson was so smooth, gracious, and funny, and partly because it meant that Chris Rock had to go out afterwards and look even smaller.

TM

Roger Simon hated Chris Rock; Dan Drezner shows why he is so great on outsourcing and poli-sci by telling us that "I think Rock was too good -- he made the rest of the show seem boring by comparison".

Maybe he meant "The Rock", with Cage and Connery.

GT

What little I saw of Chris Rock I liked. But I only watched the first few minuets. My wife watched the whole show and liked it.

I have little faith in the analysis of experts (like the ones you link to) on something like this. Remember Clinton's SotU? If people watched it, as it seemed they did, that probably means they liked it.

TM

Well, the experts are geniuses when they agree with me; otherwise, they are just elitist cranks (Dan Drenzer excepted, of course).

My wife watched the whole show, and hated it more than I did. I thought Rock bottomed out with "You're really going to enjoy these next four presenters - please welcome Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek."

Man, if one of them had tipped Rock, and said "Be careful not to dent the car when you park it", I would have paid double.

Or is it only funny when he does sterotypes?

GT

hehe, that would have been funny!

Crank

Swank's dress would have looked better with an attractive woman in it. But hey, that's just me.

Laddy

Ratings were down 2 million viewers from last year. Up in the cities and down in flyover country or most likely up with Dems and down with Reps. See the Drudge link. :)

BurbankErnie

"Does anyone think she will open a picture with the oomph of Julia Roberts or Gwyneth Paltrow?"


Puh-leese, Paltrow is the most overrated actress out there, I don't know what the afliction with her is. I agree with Roger, Swank will be around for a long time making quality flicks, long past Paltrow.

Fredrik Nyman

Hi,

I am just misbehaving a bit to make TM make good on his promise.

Dan

They have to lose the live performances of the songs. Should play snips of the original performances from the movie as they were edited and known. Talk about a waste of time. Best comment was that none should have been nominated, but wife loves "Accidentally In Love" from Shrek 2.

Missed Rock's opening monolog (was doing something useful--walking the dogs). Wife said, "Awful. Nothing but Bush bashing." Now what does that have to do with Academy Awards?

Most obvious omission: the staggering achievement of "Sky Captain." It was the first movie to synthesize the sets completely. Done almost entirely against blue screen. Like "Roger Rabbit" in reverse. Instead of cartoon characters against a live background, it was live characters against a computer generated background that (despite the implausible story) were simply fabulous. They deserved award. Way beyond normal CGI effects.

To illustrate the sad state award-winning acting has reached, to win today you need to impersonate a genuine original like Katherine Hepburn or Ray Charles or act as the opposite sex (Shakespeare In Love, Boys Don't Cry, women as boxers). With these rules, they should give an Oscar to Rich Little.

Chris Rock's best moments: going to the Magic Johnson theaters (which cater almost exclusively to the black community) and pointedly illustrating just how out of touch the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is with America: no one had seen ANY of the nominated films--as I and millions of others have and will not.

Something happened after 9/11 when the Tim Robbins's and Michael Moores of Hollywood came out so clearly against America. They violated the cardinal rule of being an entertainer: they ceased entertaining me.

When I make my decision to view, rent or buy a movie based on the irrelevant politics of an actor, he or she just stepped over the line and violated the "fourth wall" of theater. They do so at their own peril.

I watched out of curiosity as to what Rock would do. It was miserable. It will take an extraordinary effort to bring be back as a viewer of the Academy Awards next year.

sym

You didn't even like the Tim Robbins introduction ("when he's not dazzling us to death with his acting, he's boring us to death with his politics")???
I'm surprised the rightie blogs hated him. You guys are supposed to like vicious mockery of Hollywood. Or is it only funny when you do it?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame