Why is there not an Academy Award for comedy?

Rating: 9/10 (2 February 2000)

It never ceases to baffle me why there is no Award for good comedies. Good comedy is harder to write and perform than almost any other genre and yet great films like Groundhog Day are constantly ignored when the Academy issues it's nominees. It seems that to win, or even be nominated all you have to do is set your drama in the late part of the last century. Among Groundhog Day's 1993 contemporaries are the Piano, Remains of the Day, Schindler's List and Philadelphia. Worthy films all and while there may not be a dry eye in the house for any of them, there surely aren't too many laughs either!
Don't get me wrong, you won't guffaw your way through this film in the way you might at say, the Naked Gun films or South Park but it is an excellently scripted and crafted piece by Harold Ramis (famed as Egon in Ghostbusters). Ramis and Murray do appear to have an exceptional working chemistry having also collaborated on the under-rated Stripes waaaay back in the 80s. That chemistry is obvious here as Bill Murray puts in what was at that point arguably his best performance. I'm not an Andie MacDowell fan by any stretch of the imagination but she is well cast here as the prissy producer to Murray's cynical Weatherman. Also of note is Chris Elliot who you may recognise as Woogie from "There's something about Mary". Elliot carries off the part of long suffering and desperate cameraman Larry with some aplomb and I find it a shame that he does not do more work in the film industry, if only so he'd stop doing those awful Baked Tostito's ads!
While it certainly didn't deserve to win the 1994 Best Picture Oscar, it could certainly have merited a nomination. Groundhog Day is though very deserving of it's top 250 position on IMDB, although it could justify being a little higher in my opinion. It is over sentimental in parts but that could just be the cynical Brit coming out in me :)