Slow year for oscars?

Rating: Null/10 (16 February 2004)

Perhaps I was just sleepy, but I was somewhat disappointed in this film. I didn't realize it won best picture until after I watched it, so I watched it again in the hopes of seeing something I missed. I only made in half way through. When I read that it won all 9 of the Oscars for which it was nominated, I was even more surprised when I looked at some of the categories. Best picture? I guess compared to the other nominees, that's possible. Best cinematography - sure, it is a gorgeous film. Best costuming - yes, absolutely. Best sound - perhaps, I don't know how this is judged, although I can think of at least one instance where a "sound effect" didn't even match the action, but I'd rather not get into it. Best score? This I take great issue with. The main theme was poignant, but incessantly repetitive. And shallow, without depth or variety. It made the film sound like a T.V. movie of the week. When I saw that John Williams was up for an award that year and LOST to this score I was shocked. I expect Williams would do better humming in the shower than what we got here. I wish he HAD scored this film, it might not have been so tedious. Best editing? I don't know - there were definitely things going on that didn't make sense (in my opinion) that might have been more clear with either better direction or editing. Also, sequences that could have been shorter were not cut, scenes that needed more development were prematurely dropped. Overall the acting was very good, with O'Toole giving a wonderful performance, as usual. In fact, I liked all the actors and performances. I will watch this again in a widescreen format if I get the chance, but not before. If I have to listen to that overused, underdeveloped excuse for a "theme" again without good reason I might not be too happy.