The Golden Globes Prove They’re Stupid

We’ve known it for years. We even talk about it: The Golden Globes are stupid. They’re like an elementary version of the Oscars, a way for lesser films to earn awards that would never win Oscars. Yes, the Golden Globes are considered a precursor to the Oscars, and often help in predicting what will be nominated in the future.

But I sure as hell hope Oscar voters go a different direction. The Golden Globes all but snubbed The Dark Knight. It’s understandable if it’s left out of the Best Drama race, but doesn’t Christopher Nolan deserve a nod for Best Director? And Best Score? There is no film with a better score this year.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona for Best Comedy? This one definitely shows how the Foreign Press think differently than those in America. I didn’t see it, but I didn’t hear it was all that good. And, frankly, there were much better comedies than such a film. Hell, it doesn’t really matter, though: Mamma Mia! will probably win, even though it doesn’t deserve it.

Another real surprise is Tom Cruise for Tropic Thunder. He was great in it, but Best Supporting Actor? For what is officially billed as an extended, over-the-top cameo? Really?

And where is Milk in the Best Picture category? I just got back from it and thought it deserves a chance. I haven’t seen four of the films on that list, but I have to say it edges out Slumdog Millionaire, and I can’t imagine Frost/Nixon is better (I’ll be seeing that one soon enough).

When I look at the list, I guess it isn’t that bad, but there are just a few really weird choices here. On the flip side, I give them props for giving major kudos to In Bruges, which is certainly one of the best comedies of the year despite the fact that no one saw it.

Do you agree with the nominations? What got screwed? What was a surprise?

By Erik Samdahl
Related categories: Awards & Oscars
Tags: , , ,