The Golden Globes winners were announced last night. I'm surprised at my inability to offer commentary on the nominees and winners, as I'm apparently not as familiar with the 2006 film scene as I thought I was. The movie-going experiences provided by the likes of X-Men 3, Superman Returns, and Snakes on a Plane seemingly do not lend themselves well to elite and critical acclaim.
The only award with which I can strongly agree is Cars for Best Animated Film. Happy Feet was fun, but extremely schizophrenic (in the popular, not literal, sense): part musical, part action, part comedy, part political commentary… Cars, OTOH, is right up there with The Incredibles as my favorite Pixar flicks (sorry, Nemo fans).
With which winners do you agree or disagree? And with which nominees am I unfamiliar that I shouldn't be? It's never too late to catch a good film, so if the Globes can bring not only acknowledgment but also visibility to a title, the awards will have served a useful purpose.
I didn't realize the Golden Globes had already been given out. I thought they were announcing nominees this week.
That pretty much says it all. There were almost no movies worth seeing in 2006 anyway. Even the ones I went to see weren't all that great.
That's pretty scary — of the nominees (never mind the winners) I've only seen five of the movies: Pirates II, Cars, Happy Feet, Flags of our Fathers and The Da Vinci Code.
And of the others, there's not many I'm planning to see (maybe even none).
On the other hand I probably went to see more movies last year than for quite a while. I wouldn't have rated it a bad year, just fewer of the truly giant blockbusters.
I moderately liked most of the movies I saw last year — Silent Hill, Man of the Year, Stranger than Fiction — though I agree there were no standout films (except Superman Returns, which received no Globe nominations).
The awards were for TV shows also, though. Any agreement or disagreement in that venue?