Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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).

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.

"And the Oscar Goes To..." is a documentary about, naturally, the Oscar. However, if you are looking for an exhaustive film about the awards or one that is chronological, then you might be disappointed. Instead, the film mostly consists of some living Oscar recipients talking about their experience receiving the award along with a few clips of past winners. The past winners are mostly from the 1950s on--which isn't surprising since that is when they started showing the ceremony on television. And, many recent recipients aren't interviewed as well--making me wonder how they picked who would be on the show. While the film isn't perfect, it is enjoyable and gives you many nice little vignettes about the film and the craftspeople who make movies.

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.