http://www.indy.com/posts/5312 en-us joe.shearer I'll give you those with a slight disagreement on Scorsese's work on "The Departed." It may not have been his personal best work, but it was undoubtedly the best film of the year. I do agree with you on rigging up Spielberg, Lucas and Coppola onstage to present the award to him. I will agree that the Oscars are largely a popularity contest, and that undeserving films and actors are awarded unjustly (I'm looking at you, "Crash"). I think most would agree with you (including myself) that "Shakespeare in Love" was a mistake all around. It was okay, but hardly deserving of the scads of accolades it received. Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:49:07 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5312#comment_15240 http://www.indy.com/posts/5312#comment_15240 obeythedoberman Konrad, i'm right there with you on a number of your issues and references (especially Gwyneth and Russell) but that being said, Bardem was incredible and The Departed was nearly flawless. I get the whole, "we overlooked them before, let's reward them now" theory but both Javier and Marty deserved those Oscars. and does anyone really even care about best supporting actress? that's the lamest award out there. there are so few good roles for women that there's barely enough to fill the best actress nominee list, let alone supporting. Tilda Swinton, old woman from American Gangster, Blanchett in a movie that probably 3 people on this site saw... whatever. Joe, I thought Jon Stewart was awesome, as usual. I thought this was the worst year of films i'd ever seen and expected a pretty lame show. That's pretty much what it was. Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:47:06 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5312#comment_15238 http://www.indy.com/posts/5312#comment_15238 obeythedoberman best part of the oscars each year is when it ends. Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:39:26 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5312#comment_15233 http://www.indy.com/posts/5312#comment_15233 Konrad.Marshall Well, I don't know about my favorite moment. I actually hate watching the Oscars, because they always seem to get it wrong. I've loathed them ever since they gave Gwyneth Paltrow an Oscar for "Shakespeare in Love" instead of Cate Blanchett's for her first turn as "Elizabeth" (stunning performance, even more stunning result). I would say this: last night's Oscars did it again. That is, they rewarded great actors for OK performances, out of respect for the greatness of their earlier work. Javier Bardem was a wonderful villain and all, but come on, he has been much, much better in other roles. Same goes for Tilda Swinton. She's great and all, but somehow, every year, doesn't it feel like the Oscars are a way of doffing the hat to people for stuff that didn't get recognized at the time? It's like "The Departed" last year. Loved the movie, but wasn't it just Hollywood giving Scorsese his prize, after not giving him the award years earlier for "Goodfellas"? How else do you explain the "luck" of having Lucas and Spielberg, his old contemporaries, present him with the statue? That was a completely engineered moment. With that in mind, I'm more interested to hear what other people think about Oscar upsets. Who, do you think, has received an Oscar that shouldn't have? I would say that even though Phillip Seymour Hoffman's "Capote" was a great bit of mimicry, that Heath Ledger's "Brokeback Mountain" performance will stand up better. While we're on mimicry, Cate Blanchett shouldn't have got the statue for "The Aviator." Nor should Jaimie Foxx have got one for "Ray." being a good imitator does not an actor make. Oh man. I almost forgot. Russell Crowe, for "Gladiator." You gotta be kidding me! (THAT was the typical reward scenario. The Academy knew he SHOULD have got a statue for "The Insider.") Thoughts? Who else? Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:34:10 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5312#comment_15231 http://www.indy.com/posts/5312#comment_15231