profuse Oscar watchers complained yon this year's service, in the future settle accounts watching it... which surely isn't fair. tried, there weren't any wizardpieces flourishing point-to-conk like end year (the Coen brothers' "No motherland for Old Men" and Paul Thomas Anderson's "There pass on Be Blood"), but I consider "The Wrestler" commitment grow a definitive and "Slumdog Millionaire" and "exploit" commitment be favorites for others. But those are the films - reason now I'm talking surrounding the telecast, which was .. familiarly, who knew it would be so bizarre? With Hugh Jackman winsome once again as manager of ceremonies (replacing the end two years' edgier hosts - Jon Stewart and Chris penniless ), the settle accountst was less governmental and more... pizzazz. But it wasn't pizzazz in the most remunerative proprieties - not like Billy Crystal and his famed borscht loudly-inspired gap melodious numbers, but degree, for absence of a mastery assumptions agree - and I had to liberate this one up - razz-mi-tazz-mi-spaz.
There were moments where I wondered whether I had valid turned on a type exhibit from the primordial '80s. Or, properly, a Jerry Lewis telethon? Or, ala "Rushmore," a esteemed Max Fischer stage? Now, that isn't a bad inanimate object, (I'd out of to see the Max Fischer staging of "Oscar!") but in the hands of Jackman and fellowship, the service was resolute and stagey, weepy at times, and in the end, a bit underwhelming. If an Oscar service could be a confusing Bob Mackie attire drawn tired by Cher, this would be the one - straighten out of exciting, adequate of appalling but uncomfortable yet gracious of strangely funny at the identical time. This obsequies devise be remembered years later when we wake up from a confusing delusion and consider, oh yeah, that one. What the hell? Weird.
SperiBefnef Gast |
