Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

MisterWhiplash This is about what you'd expect, for the most part. Do you like montages of many of the great (American mostly) films of the 20th century and some of the 21st? Do you like interviews with the people who made the Oscars what they were (and the movies themselves) in ALL categories (not just acting but costume too)? The filmmakers give you the story of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences awards, and a little other history too (like how AMPAS actually used to be set up to strong-arm *against* the industry, but the union strength in the 1930's made it into a different beast), and also a tour through the various categories and winners and nominees over time (mostly winners).Industry main-stays like Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, George Clooney and Helen Mirren also share space with costume designers, cinematographers, editors, make-up artists, and many others for a look at what makes the art form the art form... in 90 minutes. If this had been longer, and looked at even more in-depth at the history, it might actually have been great instead of just... good. It is good, it has enough depth and history through the films that made the Oscars the Oscars to justify its existence (and of course getting clips like the Sacheen Littlefeather 1973 Godfather speech, or Jane Fonda's win for Klute, or the Damon/Affleck jubilant win for Good Will Hunting is always fun to see). I just wish it didn't skim over certain parts of Hollywood history like how the industry changed when the studios collapsed in the 1960's (there is some stuff on the blacklist though, if only briefly).

Hitchcoc This is a power packed 90 minutes. Granted the whole history of the Oscars should be a mini-series, maybe produced by Ken Burns, but for a quick historical perspective and a look at the glamor of the whole thing, this isn't bad. We get to see a multitude of stars, a few acceptance speeches, features on the different categories, all done in snippets, and there is a friendliness and honesty here that isn't usually present in these kinds of shows. I always look forward to the Oscars and ever time I'm bored and disappointed because the show is often so dull (the first five minutes is usually the best with a great production number) and endless. The other problem lately is that it's like watching election coverage where all of the races are already called before the show starts. The internet and the press usually tell us who all the winners are ahead of time. Granted, in close races, there are some surprises, but you immediately know that three of the five nominees don't have a chance. Anyway, I thought that for a little insight into the Academy Awards, this was a nice job.

preppy-3 Documentary about the Academy Awards. It covers how and why they came into being and how they evolved and changed over the years. It consists of actors, producers and directors talking about getting nominated and getting (or not getting) the award. It also shows footage from Oscar TV telecasts and some of the more memorable acceptance speeches. The most amusing were seeing Ben Affleck and Matt Damon winning Best Screenplay for "Good Will Hunting" and Michael Moore winning Best Documentary for "Bowling for Columbine". They even cover the technical awards. All in all I was entertained but wanted more. They totally ignore the Best Song category and (for some reason) go into detail about animated films being recognized. So it's worth seeing but is lacking.

ntvnyr30 There were some things I learned from this documentary which aired last light on TCM. For the first 15 years or so, the winners were announced prior to the event, which would make the ceremony anticlimactic. I suppose the attendance overall must have been lower; I mean, if I knew I wasn't chosen, then why go? It was nice to see an older Hollywood that had more class: i.e. when Clark Gable accepted his award for "It Happened One Night" he was gracious to his co-star and his director (calling him "Mr. Capra").The low point to me was the over-exposure of Jane Fonda and Cher, the latter sounded impaired when she couldn't pronounce Marvin Hamlisch's name. Fonda is--to be kind--one of the most polarizing figures and unapologetic for her radical past. It was extremely difficult to watch her.Of course, there was the predictable rant about "blacklisting" of Communist-leaning celebrities. They showed Lillian Hellman's speech during which she excoriated Senator McCarthy for the Hollywood blacklist. Miss Hellman doth protest too much. For those of you who have not been completely indoctrinated, Senator McCarthy had nothing to do with the Hollywood blacklist--this was done by the House Un-American Activities Committee. Both Senator McCarthy and Richard Nixon were used as the focal point by the left for years, probably because they were onto something about the infiltration in our government by Communists (see Alger Hiss). Do you want to know about true blacklisting? I read an article about the late Ron Silver who, after he spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention in defense of George Bush and the War on Terrorism, stated that his phone stopped ringing about potential film roles. Blacklist indeed.