Rant - The Academy Awards / Oscars suck (and here's why)

Warning_ May Contain Strong Language)... and please I know what I am talking about.

Let's go apeshit! - Rise of the Planet of the Apes

My Reaction to the 83rd Academy Awards

OK. The Oscars are over. After that, you should get a life.

And I was divided. Really divided.

The King's Speech won four Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Actor (it almost got the Big Five - Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Screenplay and Best Director). I congratulate them with their win. It is a perfect prediction for this years Oscars because as I said in the Best Picture blog, the Academy loves a feel-good movie even if my wishes wasn't fulfilled. SO anyway congratulations to them. Even if it meant that a Hollywood movie had not won that category for four years.

I was really happy that Inception had got the most Oscars with four for Visual Effects, Cinematography, Sound Editing and Mixing. Most of the technical awards. And The Social Network got three Oscars - Best Editing, Best Original Score for Nine Inch Nails duo Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross and Best Adapted Screenplay for Aaron Sorkin. And even though it didn't win any important category, Inception and The Social Network will be remembered as two of the greatest movies made in this century.

And I was also pleased that Natalie Portman won the only Oscar for Black Swan. Black Swan is a dark movie and even it is so conflicted, Portman deserved it. Everybody's a winner (except for 127 Hours, that's a shame)

Insert rant:

But the entire show is so EXCRUCIATING. Anne Hathaway and James Franco may be the youngest hosts to ever host an Oscar show, but they are the worst Oscar hosts ever!! It makes David Letterman hosting feel like Billy Crystal, it makes Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin look like Cheech & Chong.

I have completely lost faith with Hathaway and I don't know if playing Catwoman in the next Batman movie was the right choice by Christopher Nolan. Seriously James Franco cross dress as Marilyn Monroe while Hathaway makes fun of Australians. That is such a dick move. It reminds me of two guys sitting next to each other at a bar. One's drunk and the other remains sober. Hathaway acts drunk while Franco seems like he came out from Alcoholic Anomynous. That is such a dick move.

More than so, this is what I've been expecting from these two actors who have never experienced any hosting duties. They honestly could not take this seriously together and the chemistry is entirely charmless. Seriously the jokes are unfunny, the lines are unplayful and this is the moment I've been waiting for... Hathaway changing her wardrobe for EIGHT FUCKING TIMES! Hathaway bringing in a choir from the movie Waiting For Superman is somewhat a hush compensation for us if we don't enjoy until the very end. Watching Hathaway and Franco hosting the 83rd Academy Awards is like watching The Last Airbender where it doesn't have an ending and until its 127 minute there's a twist (M Night Shyalaman joke put here) but there's still no ending. Now I'm wishing Kanye would come in and interrupt them. It's also like watching The Tourist again and again.

I honestly don't get why the Academy is so obsessed with kids my age. I mean did the whole Academy go into a midlife crisis? Did they want them to grab ratings? Did the Academy want to trick them into seeing the hottest girl and guy in Hollywood hosting the biggest event of their lives? They're trying to grab a younger audience and that plan had epicly failed. Unfortunately no one 16 years younger or older to 25 is interested in good movies. Because they don't know what the fuck is a good movie. They're still playing their Call Of Duty: Black Ops, still watching the same Adam Sandler movie or Twilight movie and they will never watch classic movies like 2001: A Space Oddysey or Goodfellas.

They could've chose a comedian instead. None of them are comedians and the Academy would've gave Stephen Colbert or even Conan o Brien the rights to host it.

But the best thing about the show is a montage of The Social Network, Twilight, Toy Story 3 and Harry Potter mashuped to deliver a hilarious autotune

So my verdict is this: Everyone's a winner, but they wasted their time to the most hollow show on Earth

127 Hours - 5 days and 7 hours. 90mins of a climax

A+ (10.0)

So far, I've seen seven of the Best Picture nominees. All of which are deserving for their nomination, and 127 Hours is the latest from the genre of critically acclaimed movies intended for film buffs.

To be honest, I've never heard of the initial story of Aron Ralston having his arm stuck and then cutting off so he won't die. The story turned into a media frenzy and it's an inspirational story of survival that anyone could see.

Danny Boyle (whose previous work includes Trainspotting, 28 Days Later and lastly Slumdog Millionaire) had been wanting to make this for years now and today, he succeeded. Boyle retells the story in his daring and provocative style.

Ralston is played by James Franco and Ralston was an avid and free-spirited adventurer taking no barriers and boundaries with him in Canyonlands in Utah. He meets two girl hikers on the way going the same way as Ralston. After he left them, he goes way deeper into the canyons where, wait for it... a boulder fell behind Ralston and his arm got trapped in the process. He does several ways to get out of the rock and the only way out is... amputate his arm that is trapped.

Another movie that was so similar was Buried where for 90 minutes you get to see Ryan Reynolds trying to escape from a coffin that is buried. The movie was a sort of a gimmick, there was no story and it was just experimental so they can challenge the audience. But for 127 Hours, the premise is the same with the same length of time. The difference is it has a story that is structured, there is character and the film is visually stimilating.

Boyle is a filmmaker whose vibrant style should be appreciated. The opening sequence is almost shot like an ad starring any top NBA player you liked. It's shot with a population of ordinary people cheering or doing their normal routine. Boyle takes the camera into various angles and shots from a bird's view, extreme close-ups and high-angle. The visual empowerment comes from Ralston's vivid hallucinations and imagery of memories that feels avant-garde It's also literally shot on a hand-held video-cam where the close-ups of Aron are absolutely grainy and personal.

To tell that this was made by Boyle is that he's obsessed with his edits it makes the film more tight and edgy.

Boyle always get brownie points for the music in his films. He spanned two soundtracks for Trainspotting, brought Bollywood to the West Side in Slumdog Millionaire. His second collaboration with A.R Rahman is a great one as the score is truly atmospheric.

James Franco brings in a captivating performance and I think in almost a year as a film buff and my own opinion, the greatest and flawless from a kind of actor in this contemporary era of film. He's free-spirited and charismatic since he does everything he want to do which makes Ralston more likeble and more of a role model. When he's stuck in a boulder, he goes deep into his regrets and memories that were both in happier and sadder times. Ralston is not so much inspirational as it'll thought it will be (face it. IF you're trapped on a boulder, you would rather cut your own arm off) but he inspires to confront times of relationships going on and off between his former girlfriend, his family and work colleagues and times that would've happened before he'd got trapped. For instance, he would've been to this party the two hikers had invited had he didn't kept on going. Franco also gives his character some comic relief as well. Franco gives the defining performance of his career as a multi-talented actor who have different skills. And yes, repeat, a flawless one.

But the most discussed issue about 127 Hours is that amputation scene. That scene doesn't end the whole movie. It is over-realistic, but it's the situation of life and death he has to face if he had ran out of needs to have him survive. This is not for the faint-hearted who will literally faint when seeing that film. But, repeat, it doesn't end the entire chapter of Ralston's life as it is unpredictable when you think it would be predictable given the premise is that simple. Once you'll see Franco cutting his own arm off, you will give out a huge sigh of relief that he'd finally made it out. It is excruciating to watch but it's pumped up.

Boyle shows off his finest with this film as he has made a movie that has a basic premise, but inside is an emotional ride and journey of the explorer's life. This is almost perfect. It is one of the most visceral contemporary films of the millenieum and it is an unforgettable experience.

What a ripper!

Please welcome your hosts... James Franco and Anne Hathaway?

Finally I get to know who will host next year's Oscars. After so much predicting we finally get these two people: James Franco and Anne Hathaway.

First found out when I searched IMDB and news came in telling us that both actors are doing their duties hosting next year's Oscars.

Which had me asking:
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!?!?!?!?!

These two actors have something in common. Hathaway and Franco hosted Saturday Night Live, both appeared in great comedies (Hathaway was in The Devil Wears Prada while Franco was in Pineapple Express) and had a head start on their character as type characters (she was a children's actor, Franco was somewhat a fanboy's actor in the Spiderman movies) and they're both attractive people on the outside and the inside

But these actors are the wrong people to be negotiated with. This is the worst decision the Academy had ever made since snubbing WALL-E at the Oscars two years ago. You could have known a more accurate detail of both actors instead of knowing who they are from the gossip magazines

• Firstly, Hathaway had never had a great movie since Rachel Getting Married. That movie is still part of my favourite movies of all time. The movie had resulted her an Oscar nomination for Best Actress. But the latest film might have been a lambast. 'Love and Other Drugs' was released out of massive marketing particularly when there was details about her taking it off with Jake Gylenhaal. It was a flop debuting at sixth place with negative word-of-mouth. While Franco. Never seen his films before except the Spiderman films. But I'm not quite sure if he's a good actor and how did he deserved to be the most influential man of 2010 in many magazines (Askmen, GQ)? 

• Secondly, this is an excuse to get a boost in the ratings instead of the reason the Academy is putting behind. Choosing these actors as hosts is because the Academy believed they are 'icons of their generation'. Seriously you could have chosen Robert Downey Jr or Natalie Portman for the roles because they are great actors of their generation. Downey's in X, Portman's Y.  But because they (Franco, Hathaway) are well known to people my age, they (the Academy) choose them. It's also add to the fact that in theory, if you have an actor hosting and nominated at the Oscars at the same time, it would've a milestone. Given how Franco is a possible nominee for Best Actor for Danny Boyle's 127 Hours, it would have matched the theory.

• I think these two actors have absolutely no experience in hosting. Hosting the Oscars is a big job. It's not your average presentation night. They're not like Steve Martin, Billy Crystal who once ruled the Oscars and had us recognising movies like American Beauty, Gladiator, Lost In Translation and the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. But if these actors are hosting well they wanted us to know about great movies we have watched this year like Inception, The Social Network or Toy Story 3. But I predict that Franco and Hathaway despite their comedic routine (if they have one) would force us to look at movies we never heard or watched like Winter's Bone or Animal Kingdom or any movie that are only known to people who avoids the mainstream. Even if they had hosted Saturday Night Live, their ability to host would be limited. These people would tell us jokes that couldn't grab a laugh or such. 

• There are more choices for Academy Award hosting. You could've chose Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart or maybe Paul Giamatti or Jack Black. They all have great comic timing and had gave a great impact in our lives. For Hathaway and Franco they're only funny ONLY for their respective genres. Franco more into stoner jokes, Hathaway can only go for rom-com.

• More weirdly, I'm quite sure that it would be that moment where Hathaway would show off her dress on stage. Maybe from Versace, or Tom Hardy. Best dressed at every show. Great fashion sense, but what has it got to do with the main points of the Oscars (which is movies?)

When I watched the Oscars almost nine months ago, it was a pity to see that Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin had done the worst job into becoming the worst duos with no timing. We wanted to see the moment where Hugh Jackman last year had entertained us with an opening monologue turned to a funny musical (featuring Hathaway, although it was unintended).

But I wouldn't care about the hosts. I would care about the quality of the Oscars. For 3 years, a Hollywood studio had never had a movie winning Best Picture. The last movie to win Best Picture and it was produced by Hollywood was Martin Scorsese's The Departed. But because of the recent decisions by the Academy (like nominating ten movies for Best Picture, choosing actors since they are known in their generation), these days, the Oscars has lost its mainstream look and can only focus on arthouse and indie movies (Precious, An Education, No Country for Old Men to list a few). Now the appeal feels so boring as we are watching a two hour speech fest.

For a quick outlook on which movies I think shoud be nominated for Best Picture here are a few posters. But these movies can be overlooked.
__________________________________________________________________________________