So the Oscars are happening this Sunday. And as a diehard movie buff, I did what I always do the week leading up to the big event: I watch 1 of the Best Picture nominees and convince myself that it’s the best movie of all the nominees. This year it was Moneyball.
Though I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I was disappointed by 3 main things:
1). Scott Hatteberg’s character was played by the same actor who plays Andy Dwyer on Parks & Recreation so I was extremely disappointed when Scott wasn’t saying things like, “If you rearrange the letters in Peru, you get Europe,” or “I hit my head…or, brain helmet.” By the way, if you don’t watch this TV show, you’re missing out big time.
2). I kept expecting Jonah Hill’s character, the assistant GM of the A’s, to be drawing dicks all over his spreadsheets and documents. Watching Super Bad again this past Saturday probably played a major role in this particular expectation.
3). This final one really threw me off the whole time: In the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Brad Pitt plays a character ranging in age from 30 to 85 (rough estimate). The actor–combined with make up and visual effects–is able to play a character over a period of 50-60 years. In Moneyball, Brad Pitt plays Billy Beane, GM of the A’s, at the age of 40 in 2002. But when the movie does flashbacks to show a younger Billy at ages 18-29, they use a completely different actor. So in one movie, Brad Pitt can span half a century, but in another movie, they can’t make him play the same character over a 20 year span? Was this only confusing to me? Totally bugged me the entire time. For those of you who watch How I Met Your Mother, this is similar to the weirdness in that show where the main character is an adult, but when they flash forward to him narrating the stories to his kids (presumably 20 years later), it’s Bob Saget’s voice. At what point in this guy’s adulthood is he going to turn from his current self to Bob Saget? Why couldn’t the actor who plays the main character in present time also provide the voice for the flash forwards?? Just makes no sense.
And while we’re speaking of the Oscars, I’m begging the Academy not to give the Best Picture to The Artist. It’s probably a great movie, but you’re setting movies back 75 years by voting for this film. The Oscars are constantly concerned by lack of viewers, especially younger viewers. And yet, here we are, days away from seeing a silent movie win the big prize. Here’s one simple question the voters should ask themselves to decide what is really the Best Picture: “which movie am I likely to watch more than 1 time?” Or put another way, “which movie will most likely cause me to put the remote control down if I’m channel surfing and stumble upon it playing on HBO?” Isn’t that the right way to judge the best movie? Don’t we only watch the best movies multiple times?
For example, last year I saw The King’s Speech in the theaters about 2 weeks before the Oscars. Good movie for sure, but will I ever stop to watch it if it’s on TV? Not a chance. Nominated against The King’s Speech last year was Inception. Also saw it in the theaters….but also have watched it 15 times over the last year whenever it comes on TV. That, to me, makes it the better movie.
So there’s my two big opinions on movies leading up to the Oscars: if Brad Pitt can age 50 years in one movie, he can do it in another movie, and the Best Picture Award should be turned into the Most Watchable Movie Award.