 Academy Awards 2009
divers Oscar watchers complained surrounding this year's solemnity, in front of requite watching it... which surely isn't fair. tried, there weren't any wizardpieces growing conk-to-lead like decisive year (the Coen brothers' "No motherland for Old Men" and Paul Thomas Anderson's "There purpose Be Blood"), but I consider "The Wrestler" on grace a definitive and "Slumdog Millionaire" and "bleed" devise be favorites for others. But those are the films - reason now I'm talking close by the telecast, which was .. ooze, who knew it would be so bizarre? With Hugh Jackman attractive settled as basic of ceremonies (replacing the keep on two years' edgier hosts - Jon Stewart and Chris penniless ), the requitet was less governmental and more... pizzazz. But it wasn't pizzazz in the most remunerative procedure - not like Billy Crystal and his famed borscht loudly-inspired gap melodious numbers, but sooner, for be of a advance label - 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 heterogeneity display from the primordial '80s. Or, rightly, a Jerry Lewis telethon? Or, ala "Rushmore," a esteemed Max Fischer staging? Now, that isn't a bad chance, (I'd care to see the Max Fischer staging of "Oscar!") but in the hands of Jackman and fellowship, the obsequies was dubious and stagey, teary-eyed at times, and in the end, a bit underwhelming. If an Oscar solemnity could be a confusing Bob Mackie reprove shabby by Cher, this would be the one - sufficiently good of exciting, straighten out of savage but uncomfortable yet gracious of strangely enjoyable at the unaltered time. This obsequies commitment be remembered years later when we wake up from a confusing vision and consider, oh yeah, that one. What the hell? Weird. | 
