From the Heart: Best/Great Movies and the Oscars.

The Large Association of Movie Blogs (LAMB) has pulled its members together, myself included, and made up what we believe to be our top 5 movies of the year. Reading through the winners and the picks has made me think a lot about something, so I would like to make a little shpeel of my own onto what I believe makes a great and/or Oscar-worthy movie (which might more explain my list, especially when juxtaposed against some of the others). For instance, a lot of people picked movies like In the Valley of Elah, Michael Clayton, The Assassination of Jesse James, and No Country for Old Men. There is only one major reason as to why I didn't pick these or any of the other 'Oscar-worthy' picks: I live in a small city, so it's very, very rare for movies like that to even show their face in these parts. Hell, even Sweeney Todd is skipping out on us (damnit).

I'm not going to say anything against these films. They actually might be super awesome, and probably are. But even if I had seen them, I still may or may not have included them as my favorite of the year. Why? Because, honestly, most Oscar-worthy pictures are BORING (at least after one viewing). That's right, I said it. But I also said most, not all.

To me, a great movie doesn't have to be made by Eastwood or Scorsese and star Swank or DiCaprio... which too many recent winners have. I'm not saying these guys are awful... no, FAR from it. These people are great in their own respects. But when I watch a movie, I want to be both entertained and want to watch it again. I don't want to be like "Oh my God, that was the most depressing thing I've ever seen... never again." *pause* "THAT WAS OSCAR GOLD!" My brain doesn't really work like that.

That's why I'm ecstatic when movies like Lord of the Rings and Little Miss Sunshine are nominated, and even happier when they win. But don't get me wrong, I'm not against the depressing masterpieces. I love Pan's Labyrinth. It should have been nominated for best picture, though it obviously wasn't going to be, as it was foreign. Again, one of the biggest reasons I'm not all up and for these movies is because I haven't seen them. I just don't think that movies like The Queen would be my cup of tea (bad joke). I'll see it someday eventually anyway... I just believe there are more entertaining movies out there. Because that's all a movie is meant to be, entertaining. If it's not entertaining you, it's not doing its job. And if it isn't doing its job, then why should it get this high praise?

Of course, story isn't the only thing that makes a movie great. Acting, direction, cinematography... they all play their part. A movie can have an enthralling story, but if it looks and feels boring, then it will be. And before you jump on me, I'm not one of those people who just likes the blow-em-up blockbusters that have no depth. I love movies with depth, as well. I love all kinds of movies... almost any and all, for that matter.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to Oscar noms, the littler guys should be given a bigger chance than they're ever given, instead of just focusing on all the Scorsese's and such. There's other great movies out there, and they don't all have to be violent and/or depressing to get best picture, as a lot of the winners these days have been. Because honestly, movies are for the average movie goer, and the average movie goer is a lot more likely to see Superbad and Enchanted over Eastern Promises and The Darjeeling Limited. And in the end, it's the people's opinion that matters, not a snob in a suit who sees 30 second clips.

Finally, as to not take up a load of room, here is the link to the winners, which I'm happy to say I believe is a great list and more true to form than what the Oscars are likely to say.