- Alice Waters wants a piece of the bailout pie. [Eater, Valleywag]
-
Do shoppers have to be drivers? [streesblog]
-
Suck my manhole: part 3 [SFBG]
-
Peter Hartlaub thinks Titanic should not have won Best Picture. Peter Hartlaub is confused. [SFGate]
-
Mission gunmen nabbed. [Mission Mission]



Peter Hartlaub is confused? Really?
Sure.
While LA Confidential is a fantastic film, it was, in the end, straight-male camp. It got a free ride -- stuff like that usually does. (See: The Sopranos) It did not, however, work on more levels the way Titanic did. Titanic's main fault was its glaring lack of indie-cred, since it was a smash hit.
Thanks for the link. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Titanic's main fault is it was filled with a lot of scenes like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UU_uCAZQKM&feature=related
(I think it worked better in Wedding Crashers.)
oy. you got me there. i forgot (10+ years, right?) about those irish-ish scenes.
no offense, though. and the 'best song' oscar snafu you mention (phil collins) still haunts my dreams.
Nope, Brock, you're still entirely wrong. Titanic was a rather terrible, empty film that was little more than a dull, predictable romance tacked onto an equally dull effects showcase disaster movie.
Film Threat did this a few years ago and, I believe, they determined that roughly half of the films awarded Best Picture have, in hindsight (or obviously at the time) not deserved it.
Now let's move on to talking about the shopping/driving issue. I can't imagine that people really think shoppers are braving traffic and just hoping that they'll miraculously find parking places to shop at their stores. One or two street spaces in front mean nothing. Do people actually drive around to shop and expect to do something other than pay out the ass for a lot (and who's willing to do that?) or be willing to drive around for 40 minutes to find an open space a mile away.
Leo and Kate were bit players. The Boat was the real star. But a boat has no hands, especially a CGI one, so they have to give the award to somebody.
On the topic of the Oscar "article."
Wow. What a sad regurgitation of Entertainment Weekly's Recall the Gold series.
The one-line explanations of why the winners should have lost, combined with an almost complete lack of the writer's opinions on who SHOULD have won and why made that one hell of a shitty read.
Two-hundred and twenty-eight comments. Fine. The article could have been a single sentence with the same result. "What Oscar wins do YOU think were wrong?"
And I'm not sure the exact number, but I'm pretty sure that the number of comments is roughly the same as the number of words in that piece.
Thank you Mr. Hartlaub for this addition to your already stellar body of work that includes: "Top 9 Greatest Video Game Heroines,"Best and Worst Gang Movies,"The 9 Best 'Star Wars' Based Video Games,"The Nine Types of Facebook Friends,"Which Muppet Are You?," and my favorite, "Your Worst Childhood Pet."
And those are all in the past MONTH.
Thanks for setting the bar too low to limbo under. No one will ever wonder why your blog is called "The Poop."
Ha ha, nice takedown!
P.S. Comments are still broken.
The worst Oscar travesty will always, always, always be Gladiator.
I know six-year-olds who found that movie unsophisticated and poorly-acted.
Good call. Gladiator was silly.
I also thought it was galling that Silence of the Lambs, a ho-hum thriller, got best pic over JFK.
Nah, after finally finding the list I mentioned earlier (or, at least, one very much like it) it was actually a post-Gladiator list to determine if it was, in fact, the worst ever. It was concluded that
"The Broadway Melody
Cavalcade
The Greatest Show on Earth
Around the World in 80 Days
Oliver!
Out of Africa
Forrest Gump
and The English Patient rank below it."
Also, while it might not be the worst film to win (though I personally dislike it) Rocky was probably the worst pick because every other film nominated in '77 was significantly better. I mean All The President's Men, Network and Taxi Driver? And a story about a boxer who doesn't actually win (but is told that the important thing is trying... how PC is that?) is considered the best? That's a travesty.
It's also the nature of the award. Going back and about 50-70% of the films to win are dated, mediocre, or just vastly inferior to the films that in many cases weren't even nominated.
Every couple of years they inexplicably get it right. Since No Country For Old Men won last year I don't expect to see another deserving film win for another five years or so.