Best Picture: The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow) Actor in a Leading Role: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) Actress in a Leading Role: Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side) Directing: The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow) Actor in a Supporting Role: Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) Actress in a Supporting Role: Mo'Nique (Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire) Music (Original Score): Up I only listed the once from the polls for full results http://oscar.go.com/oscar-night/winners
Poll: What are you most looking forward to? (Vote): Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin Hosting (Vote): David vs. Goliath (Hurt Locker lowest budget movie ever to win , Avatar highest) (Vote): The Speeches (Vote): Red Carpet Gown Extravaganza (Vote): Jack Nicholson
Poll: Best Picture (Vote): Avatar (Vote): The Blind Side (Vote): District 9 (Vote): An Education (Vote): The Hurt Locker (Vote): Inglourious Basterds (Vote): Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire (Vote): A Serious Man (Vote): Up (Vote): Up in the Air
Poll: Directing (Vote): James Cameron (Avatar) (Vote): Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds) (Vote): Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) (Vote): Lee Daniels (Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire) (Vote): Jason Reitman (Up in the Air)
Poll: Actor in a Leading Role (Vote): Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) (Vote): George Clooney (Up in the Air) (Vote): Colin Firth (A Single Man) (Vote): Morgan Freeman (Invictus) (Vote): Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker )
Poll: Actor in a Supporting Role (Vote): Matt Damon (Invictus) (Vote): Woody Harrelson (The Messenger) (Vote): Christopher Plummer (The Last Station) (Vote): Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones) (Vote): Christopher Waltz (Inglourious Bastards)
Poll: Actress in a Leading Role (Vote): Sanda Bullock (The Blind Side) (Vote): Carey Mulligan (An Education) (Vote): Helen Mirren (The Last Station) (Vote): Gabourey Sidbie (Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire) (Vote): Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)
Poll: Actress in a Supporting Role (Vote): Penelope Cruz (Nine) (Vote): Verna Farmiga (Up in the Air) (Vote): Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart) (Vote): Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air) (Vote): Mo'Nique (Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
Poll: Music (Original Score) (Vote): Avatar (Vote): Fantastic Mr. Fox (Vote): The Hurt Locker (Vote): Sherlock Holmes (Vote): Up
This is the first time they expanded it to 10 so thats why some questionable selections are up there. I dont know most of the times I disagree with the best picture nominees at least this years theirs a couple ive watched and enjoyed. The Coen got some sort of lifetime achievement pass for having made Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Burn After Reading and No Country for Old Men
Why are District 9 and inglorious bastards up there? They were decent at best >.> The hurt locker was low budget? I didn't even realize, that movie is awesome I hope it wins
Hurt Locker was so bad . . . bleh. It was the perfect movie for consumption and then never to reflect on ever again. It's paying 10€ to waste 2 hours because you really can't stand time - it pisses you off. And it's up for an oscar . . . it should have 5/10 on imdb and forever be branded a B-movie turd pile. >_> Just felt like venting.
Mo'Nique (Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire) was pretty good considering she's a COMEDIAN. It seemed to be really out of her norm to play the role she did in Precious, I hope she wins supporting actress!
I only know of her as a comedian tho, never seen any other serious dramas that she has ever done though, but she was good in Precious.
I think it is strange that Christoph Waltz is nominated as best supporting role. To me Hans Landa and Shosanna were clearly the most important characters aka leading roles.
Christopher Waltz was just amazing in Inglourious Basterds and ought to get the award! The movie itself really deserves an award aswell! One of the best movies I've seen in a looong time.
Mo'Nique's performance is so overrated, it's remarkable. She can't act at all. Her movie 'Phat Girlz' is perhaps the worst piece of garbage I've ever seen.
On March 08 2010 04:26 Koltz wrote: 2009 was a bad year indeed
Yes, this is the weakest year I've seen in a long time. The fact that Sandra Bullock has a chance to win lead and Mo'Nique win supporting is proof of how horrible this year was in film.
The only movies i saw out of that list were District 9 and Avatar both which were very good. I haven't seen the others though. I hear Hurt Locker was pretty good and had a reaaaalllly low budget. Well i guess ill have to netfix those.
On March 08 2010 04:12 BuGzlToOnl wrote: How can "A Serious Man" be on there? That movie was horrid.
you're horrid. That movie was the most amazing thing I have ever watched.
that movie was really bad, kinda american beauty wannabee movie, I am not saying that coen's brothers are bad directors but they failed at this one.
tell me why it was bad.
Because I felt it was so average and too "dry", it was supposed to be a comedy, and as I wrote before, it was more like some kind of american beauty thing. I love the coen's brothers but not this movie, sorry
On March 08 2010 05:50 Lefnui wrote: Mo'Nique's performance is so overrated, it's remarkable. She can't act at all. Her movie 'Phat Girlz' is perhaps the worst piece of garbage I've ever seen.
On March 08 2010 04:26 Koltz wrote: 2009 was a bad year indeed
Yes, this is the weakest year I've seen in a long time. The fact that Sandra Bullock has a chance to win lead and Mo'Nique win supporting is proof of how horrible this year was in film.
Why would u watch a movie called, "PHAT GIRLZ" in the first place.. you SHOULD already know how it's going to be.. hahah
I actually thought Avatar and the Hurt Locker were both very average. One of them will win, but it would be so much nicer if something original like Inglourious Basterds or Up in the Air (or Up for that matter) won.
Monique was really overrated as well...that whole movie was.
maybe I'm biased but I just don't understand how anyone can take inglorious bastards as such a good movie
it makes a mockery out of World War II. that might just be me being a history nerd wanting to revere the greatest/worst war of human history, but I just don't think it even competes with other movies up there
On March 08 2010 06:49 Piy wrote: I actually thought Avatar and the Hurt Locker were both very average. One of them will win, but it would be so much nicer if something original like Inglourious Basterds or Up in the Air (or Up for that matter) won.
Monique was really overrated as well...that whole movie was.
On March 08 2010 05:34 Emon_ wrote: Hurt Locker was so bad . . . bleh. It was the perfect movie for consumption and then never to reflect on ever again. It's paying 10€ to waste 2 hours because you really can't stand time - it pisses you off. And it's up for an oscar . . . it should have 5/10 on imdb and forever be branded a B-movie turd pile. >_> Just felt like venting.
honestly bro wat r u talking about? What kind of movies r u watching here? hurt locker is by far one of the better pics this year..
On March 08 2010 07:15 zizou21 wrote: honestly bro wat r u talking about? What kind of movies r u watching here? hurt locker is by far one of the better pics this year..
Tough guy remains reckless and tough throughout the movie with no character development and is still tough in the end. Theres a fucking war going on. Doesn't he have a realization about it at all? Nope. He's a bomb defusing guy. Sure, he may take a cold shower sometime because a kid was blown away. But then he's back to his bad ass ways. Fuck yeah - It's Commando 2 without Arnold. Compared to American History X - that also had a badass main character - this movie is a waste of time and a waste of film.
I've only seen Avatar, Up in the Air, A Serious Man, but if I had to pick between those movies, it would be incredibly easy.
Avatar: A silly action movies with silly things and good graphics. Pretty to look at, an advancement in animation, but a movie with little to no real lasting value. I actually hate it a bit because I know a bunch of people who have giant erections for it.
Up in the Air: I loved this movie, but the more I look back on it, the less I think it deserves the "Best Picture" award. It was funny, and brought up some interesting points about the nature of change, but it was very full of fluff. I really like it, but I don't think it deserves best picture.
A Serious Man: Saw this a few weeks ago. Oh. My. God. Call me a Coen fanboy, but ASM was incredibly brilliant, with insight into the areas of faith, family, morals, and cultural judaism. The acting was top notch, especially Fred Melamed's portrayal of Sy Ableman. The Cohen Brothers really outdid themselves, spinning a tale as sad and dark as it is sidesplitting. I literally rolled on the floor laughing + Show Spoiler +
during the dream sequence after Arthur cries by the pool, where Lawrence imagines sending his brother across the border with the bribe money, only to have him shot by his crazy neighbor. Something about the way the guy said "There's another Jew, son!" made me laugh.
.
In short, I think A Serious Man was a brilliant movie and, from what I've seen, deserves the Academy Award. If any of the others listed here win, I won't be pleased.
idk about that, I was just mentioning that this was the biggest year at the box office ever
if that was a jab at Avatar, the Avatar script had a unique environment/story and the lead actors are anything but washed up
You're kidding right? Environment I'll give you, but Avatar's story was a far cry from unique.
the plot structure might not have been the most unique (then again, if you get nitty and gritty about it the majority of movies aren't), but the story told is
being such a popular movie, some people (not all, but I want to say most) tend to hate it just because it is popular (even though they try to convince themselves their hatred is legit for other reasons)
On March 08 2010 07:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote: maybe I'm biased but I just don't understand how anyone can take inglorious bastards as such a good movie
it makes a mockery out of World War II. that might just be me being a history nerd wanting to revere the greatest/worst war of human history, but I just don't think it even competes with other movies up there
a mockery out of the nazi - yes, out of the WW II - no. What did I like about that movie? nazis having their brains bashed out with a baseball bat - nuff said.
it's a bad comedy that is tried to be played off as a drama. it just feels like everytime something absurd happens it's because the audience is meant to find it funny (which in most cases it isn't. although I guess some people find a human getting their skull bashed with a baseball bat funny, it just isn't my cup of tea)
the only funny moments are when they are discussing who will speak italian in the basement and when they actually try to speak italian
it's a mockery of far more than just the nazis. all the characters are dehumanized/desensitized
I hope either D9, Hurt Locker or UP win. Avatar had amazing graphics, sound blah blah blah but one of the worst stories ever; cliches cobbled together to form a disgusting monster.
i disliked inglorious basterds and district 9. Im not sure what you guys saw in the movie it just seemed to lack alot. Inglorious basterds had alot of good acting and the way that it was put together was genious like all of quentins movies. but i just couldn't enjoy it.
I saw only one movie nominated for an academy award apparently (Avatar) oh wait, I saw half of district 9 and got bored and turned it off guess that's 2 ><
On March 08 2010 11:09 KOFgokuon wrote: I saw only one movie nominated for an academy award apparently (Avatar) oh wait, I saw half of district 9 and got bored and turned it off guess that's 2 ><
On March 08 2010 11:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I think Hurt Locker will take most due to the fact that people just hate Avatar due to the 3D etc.
I don't find Avatar that great due to the fact that its severely overrated. Mediocre acting, and a script that is basically Pocahantas in the future? I'm sorry, great special effects shouldn't make that the best film of the year.
On March 08 2010 12:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: people hate avatar because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique"
It's a decent movie, but it lacks the it factor that is required to win. I'm betting on either Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, or Up.
On March 08 2010 12:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: people hate avatar because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique"
No, they don't like it because their opinion differs from yours. I saw it, thought it was meh, then I liked it less when people gushed on and on about it. It's like a stupid girl with a hot body. Good to hit on occasion but never a font of inspiration afterwards.
On March 08 2010 12:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: people hate avatar because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique"
You do realize how terribly corny and cliche Avatar was right? That why I hate it.
On March 08 2010 12:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: people hate avatar because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique"
No, they tend to dislike it for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.
I despise it when people say that others disagree with them for some stupid reason, instead of rebutting the other person's arguments. Saying x likes y because of conformity, or nonconformity, or racism, or political correctness, or whatever is bullshit without evidence. Either rebut what people have said or don't make simplistic and incorrect comments.
On March 08 2010 12:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: people hate avatar because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique"
No, they don't like it because their opinion differs from yours. I saw it, thought it was meh, then I liked it less when people gushed on and on about it. It's like a stupid girl with a hot body. Good to hit on occasion but never a font of inspiration afterwards.
fair enough.
people tend to consider their opinion more than what it actually is all too often in this situation, which is just an opinion.
No, they tend to dislike it for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.
I despise it when people say that others disagree with them for some stupid reason, instead of rebutting the other person's arguments. Saying x likes y because of conformity, or nonconformity, or racism, or political correctness, or whatever is bullshit without evidence. Either rebut what people have said or don't make simplistic and incorrect comments.
you might want to consider the fact that an argument doesn't need to be rebutted if it has no support before you go as far as despising people for rebutting said arguments
take the recent post as an example:
"You do realize how terribly corny and cliche Avatar was right? That why I hate it."
sure that's an argument, but there's no reason I should be worried about rebutting that because it's a terrible argument without any support
Worst Picture of 2009: Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (Aka Trannies, Too) (DREAMWORKS/PARAMOUNT) Worst Actress of 2009: Sandra Bullock All About Steve Worst Actor(s) of 2009: All Three Jonas Brothers Jonas Brothers: The 3-D Concert Experience Worst Screen Couple: Sandra Bullock & Bradley Cooper All About Steve Worst Supporting Actress: Sienna Miller G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA Worst Supporting Actor: Billy Ray Cyrus HANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel (Combined Category for 2009): Land of The Lost (Universal PIctures) Worst Director: Michael Bay TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (aka TRANNIES, TOO) Worst Screenplay: Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen Written by Ehren Kruger & Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman, Based on Hasbro’s Transformers Action Figures
Logorama winning the short film award was sooooo good. Watched it and was like "if this doesn't win, people should die." It wins, and suddenly I realize sometimes judges are right.
On March 08 2010 12:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: people hate avatar because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique"
No, they don't like it because their opinion differs from yours. I saw it, thought it was meh, then I liked it less when people gushed on and on about it. It's like a stupid girl with a hot body. Good to hit on occasion but never a font of inspiration afterwards.
fair enough.
people tend to consider their opinion more than what it actually is all too often in this situation, which is just an opinion.
No, they tend to dislike it for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.
I despise it when people say that others disagree with them for some stupid reason, instead of rebutting the other person's arguments. Saying x likes y because of conformity, or nonconformity, or racism, or political correctness, or whatever is bullshit without evidence. Either rebut what people have said or don't make simplistic and incorrect comments.
you might want to consider the fact that an argument doesn't need to be rebutted if it has no support before you go as far as despising people for rebutting said arguments
take the recent post as an example:
"You do realize how terribly corny and cliche Avatar was right? That why I hate it."
sure that's an argument, but there's no reason I should be worried about rebutting that because it's a terrible argument without any support
What?
Let's replay:
People: I dislike Avatar because of XYZ reason You: No, you dislike avatar because of reazon Q: "because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique""
In this situation, presumably I know better than you why I was not a fan of the movie. Similarly, everyone else who posted likely knows better than you did why they were not a fan of the movie.
You were the one who originally made the claim about why I think what I think. You must support that claim against my evidence that I know who I am and you have never met me. Therefore, you must either show that you know me better than I know myself, or that my stated reason for belief is so illogical that I must have a different underlying one.
I do not need to defend my claim: "avatar was a movie with cliche plot and characters" against your claim "Avatar is the shizzle". Neither of us has evidence.
However, you made a claim with no evidence against my claim with evidence with an argument that amounted to saying that I don't know what I think and you do. Therefore, you need to either defend your claim or it falls. If neither of us defends our initial claims (which are subjective anyway), they'll just coexist.
On March 08 2010 12:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: sure that's an argument, but there's no reason I should be worried about rebutting that because it's a terrible argument without any support
much like:
people hate avatar because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique"
On March 08 2010 12:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: people hate avatar because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique"
No, they don't like it because their opinion differs from yours. I saw it, thought it was meh, then I liked it less when people gushed on and on about it. It's like a stupid girl with a hot body. Good to hit on occasion but never a font of inspiration afterwards.
fair enough.
people tend to consider their opinion more than what it actually is all too often in this situation, which is just an opinion.
No, they tend to dislike it for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.
I despise it when people say that others disagree with them for some stupid reason, instead of rebutting the other person's arguments. Saying x likes y because of conformity, or nonconformity, or racism, or political correctness, or whatever is bullshit without evidence. Either rebut what people have said or don't make simplistic and incorrect comments.
you might want to consider the fact that an argument doesn't need to be rebutted if it has no support before you go as far as despising people for rebutting said arguments
take the recent post as an example:
"You do realize how terribly corny and cliche Avatar was right? That why I hate it."
sure that's an argument, but there's no reason I should be worried about rebutting that because it's a terrible argument without any support
What?
Let's replay:
People: I dislike Avatar because of XYZ reason You: No, you dislike avatar because of reazon Q: "because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique""
In this situation, presumably I know better than you why I was not a fan of the movie. Similarly, everyone else who posted likely knows better than you did why they were not a fan of the movie.
You were the one who originally made the claim about why I think what I think. You must support that claim against my evidence that I know who I am and you have never met me. Therefore, you must either show that you know me better than I know myself, or that my stated reason for belief is so illogical that I must have a different underlying one.
I do not need to defend my claim: "avatar was a movie with cliche plot and characters" against your claim "Avatar is the shizzle". Neither of us has evidence.
However, you made a claim with no evidence against my claim with evidence with an argument that amounted to saying that I don't know what I think and you do.
Let's replay:
People: x claim because of y reason Me: no, z claim because of b reason
You may know better but you offer no support, just criticism. Same may be said for anyone who has simply criticized without support.
I guess I'm guilty of making claims without support too, which could qualify me as a hypocrite, but I am mostly making such claims without support to "get back at" and show how absurd it is to just criticize without offering support and expect to be taken seriously.
I don't have to prove your belief is illogical if you don't prove it is logical in the first place, burden of proof goes both ways. To believe otherwise is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
I'm not saying you have to defend that given claim against my given claim, I'm actually saying I don't have to give evidence for why a claim is wrong if it has no evidence for why it is right (which means you and I actually agree so this argument is pointless).
My claim held as much evidence as your claim and most claims simply criticizing or praising the movie without support, so I don't understand why you're specifically calling out my argument for lacking support out of the dozens of arguments made.
On March 08 2010 12:46 DatTheMighty wrote: anyone streamings this? christopher walts just won best supporting actor btw. =D all inglorious basterds fans *highfive.
ehm I think you're quite a bit behind the rest of us. wasnt that like the first award given out?
On March 08 2010 12:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: sure that's an argument, but there's no reason I should be worried about rebutting that because it's a terrible argument without any support
people hate avatar because it's so popular and they get a kick out of "sitting on a high horse" and being "unique"
yes, it's a terrible argument, as terrible as the arguments in this thread that are criticizing it. are you going to call them out on being terrible arguments as well?
ok seriously guys, can't you just shut up, accept the fact that not everyone has the same taste (and want to masturbate to blue things with a tail). can't we discuss the REST of the awards?
On March 08 2010 12:50 Julmust wrote: ok seriously guys, can't you just shut up, accept the fact that not everyone has the same taste (and want to masturbate to blue things with a tail). can't we discuss the REST of the awards?
Yes we can. Cinema is dead when an actress who starred in Phat Girlz can win an Oscar then in the acceptance speech bash the media etc.
On March 08 2010 12:50 Julmust wrote: ok seriously guys, can't you just shut up, accept the fact that not everyone has the same taste (and want to masturbate to blue things with a tail). can't we discuss the REST of the awards?
obviously didn't read anything I said and just skimmed it
lmao I thought that guy told a funny joke when he said he would like to thank the academy for not considering Na'vi a foreign language but the room was dead silent.
On March 08 2010 13:19 ArsenalGunners wrote: lmao I thought that guy told a funny joke when he said he would like to thank the academy for not considering Na'vi a foreign language but the room was dead silent.
Ya I thought it was a good joke too. I guess it's all about delivery.
I want Sandra Bullock to win the Best Actress award solely for her reaction to winning a Razzie award:
ETA: OOHH SHII-- Did not see Carey Mulligan in the nominee list. I absolutely fell in love with her in "An Education" sooo I would actually prefer her to win. The Blind side looks like sentimental cheese anyway.
ETA 2: Is this a new feature? Co-stars trying to sell their respective leading stars.
Hurt Locker has taken like 3 awards up against Avatar.
Either this is a sign that they are giving HL all those awards b/c Avatar is getting best picture, or it means that the actors reallllllly don't like Avatar (more likely).
On March 08 2010 13:34 ArsenalGunners wrote: I thought Colin Farrell did a horrible job, he sounded so insincere proving he really cant act worth a damn
Funny you say that because I felt that Julianne Moore's introduction of colin firth was uncharacteristically robotic and forced. I can't imagine her delivering such a lackluster performance like that in an actual movie.
On March 08 2010 13:34 ArsenalGunners wrote: I thought Colin Farrell did a horrible job, he sounded so insincere proving he really cant act worth a damn
Funny you say that because I felt that Julianne Moore's introduction of colin firth was uncharacteristically robotic and forced. I can't imagine her delivering such a lackluster performance like that in an actual movie.
IMO that is what she does in every movie I have ever seen her in.
On March 08 2010 13:34 ArsenalGunners wrote: I thought Colin Farrell did a horrible job, he sounded so insincere proving he really cant act worth a damn
it did sound pretty awkward, especially at the end
doesn't mean he can't act though, in fact he's a pretty amazing actor, especially in "In Bruges"
On March 08 2010 13:50 Lachrymose wrote: i guess im the only one who likes these introductions of the nominees. >_>;;
My gripe is that we have individual introductions, then they restate the nominees. This happens twice with the actors and actresses. Not to mention the 10(!!!) movies given each their moment. I was ok with 5, but honestly does anybody think the other 5 added really have a chance of winning?
On March 08 2010 13:55 ArsenalGunners wrote: Yay the academy chooses to make a political statement instead of awarding Quentin
Yaa. Disappointing. The hurt locker wasn't even that good. And I realllly liked it. It was like the Bourne Series in Iraq. Tarntino deserved this shit.
On top of that you have a dick producer who got banned from the awards, the person the story is about sueing the producers for not asking his permission and every soldier who has ever seen that movie think it's an utter joke.
On March 08 2010 13:57 On_Slaught wrote: Meh. Hurt Locker wasn't even that good.
On top of that you have a dick producer who got banned from the awards, the person the story is about sueing the producers for not asking his permission and every soldier who has ever seen that movie think it's an utter joke.
It better not get best picture.
If you want a better version of the HUrt Locker, watch "Generation Kill", the mini series done by the creators of The Wire.
On March 08 2010 13:57 On_Slaught wrote: Meh. Hurt Locker wasn't even that good.
On top of that you have a dick producer who got banned from the awards, the person the story is about sueing the producers for not asking his permission and every soldier who has ever seen that movie think it's an utter joke.
It better not get best picture.
If you want a better version of the HUrt Locker, watch "Generation Kill", the mini series done by the creators of The Wire.
On March 08 2010 13:57 On_Slaught wrote: Meh. Hurt Locker wasn't even that good.
On top of that you have a dick producer who got banned from the awards, the person the story is about sueing the producers for not asking his permission and every soldier who has ever seen that movie think it's an utter joke.
It better not get best picture.
If you want a better version of the HUrt Locker, watch "Generation Kill", the mini series done by the creators of The Wire.
I can't believe Sandra Bullock won Best Actress. I can't believe Sandra Bullock won Best Actress. -_- Also, avatar deserved more, IMO. I understand giving Hurt Locker credit, but Avatar should have gotten a few more nods then it received.
On March 08 2010 13:57 On_Slaught wrote: Meh. Hurt Locker wasn't even that good.
On top of that you have a dick producer who got banned from the awards, the person the story is about sueing the producers for not asking his permission and every soldier who has ever seen that movie think it's an utter joke.
It better not get best picture.
If you want a better version of the HUrt Locker, watch "Generation Kill", the mini series done by the creators of The Wire.
I think those are two different things. Generation Kill actually chronicles the events that happened while Hurt Locker was a lot more personal and was a dissection of the events and emotions that go down in the situations that were presented to main character of that movie. There was no room to experiment in the characters of Generation Kill. Now ask yourself, did you find the character's less realistic in Hurt Locker, or the events that happened?
I think what made Reimer's character unique was when he went back home to talk with his baby and there you find out the reason why he does what he does, I don't think there are many if any the same type of characters that he portrayed.
So it looks like two under-dogs in a row for the Oscars!
On March 08 2010 14:02 blue_arrow wrote: David topples the giant once again
hurt locker was 55% to win on intrade markets
interestingly enough the third most likely was inglorious basterds
i was referring to the OP, not to the probability of avatar taking the award, to which i hope no pragmatic person would actually consider a high possibility
i'm surprised avatar and inglorious basterds were even 2nd and 3rd in those 'intrade markets'
Man I just watched The Blind Side to see what Sandra Bullock got her Oscar for, and I really do get it now. She was amazing in her role, and the whole film was really well directed aswell.
The Hurt Locker was good... but right now, just after seeing it I don't see 5(?) oscars on it at all. I liked it, but Inglorious Basterds, even Up in the air were better movies.
Now downling The Hurt Locker ... And ofc i am happy that Avatar didnt win that much awards. Avatar is all about speciall effect, we cant even judge how well those actors and actress perform due to their Alien apperance.
wow, it first struck me that the hurt locker really didn't deserve that oscar. Then I thought, what the fuck competition did it have? A bunch of B+ movies. Then I thought, what are most Oscars' best film awards battles usually between? A bunch of B+ movies. I guess you never really get much good stuff in one year. The Dark Knight completely deserved a nomination last year, I mean wtf the curious case of benjamin button was a dire film, should have taken that place. I agree with No Country for Old Men winning 2007 but only cos all those other films were average as fuck. Tbh I preferred Michael Clayton but at least the film had something.
And then I looked at past winners, and saw that Shakespeare In Love beat Life is Beautiful AND Saving Private Ryan; Forrest Gump beat The Shawshank Redemption AND Pulp Fiction (btw what a fucking year); Annie Hall beat Star Wars; The French Connection beat A Clockwork Orange. The list goes on. The Oscars is not for people who like films seriously to watch, imho.
Then I saw The Good the Bad and The Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West didn't even get nominations. The former wasn't even recognised for its Soundtrack. It's tragic. They may get their choices right for best actors and actresses, but imo the Oscars are 'right' (even though it is ofc subjective) about 10% of the time about best picture.
On March 08 2010 19:30 sc4k wrote: wow, it first struck me that the hurt locker really didn't deserve that oscar. Then I thought, what the fuck competition did it have? A bunch of B+ movies. Then I thought, what are most Oscars' best film awards battles usually between? A bunch of B+ movies. I guess you never really get much good stuff in one year. The Dark Knight completely deserved a nomination last year, I mean wtf the curious case of benjamin button was a dire film, should have taken that place. I agree with No Country for Old Men winning 2007 but only cos all those other films were average as fuck. Tbh I preferred Michael Clayton but at least the film had something.
And then I looked at past winners, and saw that Shakespeare In Love beat Life is Beautiful AND Saving Private Ryan; Forrest Gump beat The Shawshank Redemption AND Pulp Fiction (btw what a fucking year); Annie Hall beat Star Wars; The French Connection beat A Clockwork Orange. The list goes on. The Oscars is not for people who like films seriously to watch, imho.
Then I saw The Good the Bad and The Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West didn't even get nominations. The former wasn't even recognised for its Soundtrack. It's tragic. They may get their choices right for best actors and actresses, but imo the Oscars are 'right' (even though it is ofc subjective) about 10% of the time about best picture.
You left out Citizen Kane losing to some movie whose name I can't even remember.
On March 08 2010 19:30 sc4k wrote: wow, it first struck me that the hurt locker really didn't deserve that oscar. Then I thought, what the fuck competition did it have? A bunch of B+ movies. Then I thought, what are most Oscars' best film awards battles usually between? A bunch of B+ movies. I guess you never really get much good stuff in one year. The Dark Knight completely deserved a nomination last year, I mean wtf the curious case of benjamin button was a dire film, should have taken that place. I agree with No Country for Old Men winning 2007 but only cos all those other films were average as fuck. Tbh I preferred Michael Clayton but at least the film had something.
And then I looked at past winners, and saw that Shakespeare In Love beat Life is Beautiful AND Saving Private Ryan; Forrest Gump beat The Shawshank Redemption AND Pulp Fiction (btw what a fucking year); Annie Hall beat Star Wars; The French Connection beat A Clockwork Orange. The list goes on. The Oscars is not for people who like films seriously to watch, imho.
Then I saw The Good the Bad and The Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West didn't even get nominations. The former wasn't even recognised for its Soundtrack. It's tragic. They may get their choices right for best actors and actresses, but imo the Oscars are 'right' (even though it is ofc subjective) about 10% of the time about best picture.
You left out Citizen Kane losing to some movie whose name I can't even remember.
yeah, that was another huge wtf moment among so many.
I hope Bigelow didn't win just because the academy felt it needed to finally have a female best director. And was the editing in The Hurt Locker better than in Avatar? Also Coraline was twice as good as Up.
I kinda expected The Hurt Locker to win the most awards but not this much. Avatar was nice but too cartoonish(story) for me. And I'm a little sad D-9 didn't get anything at all.
Of course the hurt locker won, they have a time travel machine :D! They are playing in 2004 a console which was released in 2005 and a game released in 2006!
On March 08 2010 21:47 0x64 wrote: Of course the hurt locker won, they have a time travel machine :D! They are playing in 2004 a console which was released in 2005 and a game released in 2006!
On March 08 2010 23:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote: bleh I'm really disappointed that Avatar didn't take home the best picture, it definitely deserved it
it deserved to win best picture like Leta deserves to win an OSL/MSL. Seems really good until you take a closer look and see how flawed and limited they actually are...aka should never, ever, ever happen.
On March 08 2010 23:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote: bleh I'm really disappointed that Avatar didn't take home the best picture, it definitely deserved it
Really? Because I feel that if Avatar won best picture the Oscars would have been a total joke.
Yeah imagine the highest grossing movie of all time winning best picture, what a joke.
I understand that they want to give awards to great effort and try to overlook box office success but in this case I think they made a mistake.
Avatar was a global success, the hurt locker might make some good socials points and be very meaningful to middle/upper-class Americans but worldwide no-one gives a shit. Something that has Global appeal vs a "flavour of the month" film. I don't really think it's fair.
What Avatar has done for cinema overall should also be taken into account. A lot of cinemas are really struggling financially, a film like Avatar is fantastic for them.
Having said that they didn't give the first LotR film an Oscar. Since they announced sequels maybe they'll wait and give it one of them instead.
On March 08 2010 23:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote: bleh I'm really disappointed that Avatar didn't take home the best picture, it definitely deserved it
Really? Because I feel that if Avatar won best picture the Oscars would have been a total joke.
Yeah imagine the highest grossing movie of all time winning best picture, what a joke.
I understand that they want to give awards to great effort and try to overlook box office success but in this case I think they made a mistake.
Avatar was a global success, the hurt locker might make some good socials points and be very meaningful to middle/upper-class Americans but worldwide no-one gives a shit. Something that has Global appeal vs a "flavour of the month" film. I don't really think it's fair.
What Avatar has done for cinema overall should also be taken into account. A lot of cinemas are really struggling financially, a film like Avatar is fantastic for them.
Having said that they didn't give the first LotR film an Oscar. Since they announced sequels maybe they'll wait and give it one of them instead.
Agreed, in 10 years nobody is going to remember THL but they will remember Avatar. LOTR 1 won 4 oscars. Not best picture though if that's what you're talking about.
On March 08 2010 23:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote: bleh I'm really disappointed that Avatar didn't take home the best picture, it definitely deserved it
Really? Because I feel that if Avatar won best picture the Oscars would have been a total joke.
Yeah imagine the highest grossing movie of all time winning best picture, what a joke.
I understand that they want to give awards to great effort and try to overlook box office success but in this case I think they made a mistake.
Avatar was a global success, the hurt locker might make some good socials points and be very meaningful to middle/upper-class Americans but worldwide no-one gives a shit. Something that has Global appeal vs a "flavour of the month" film. I don't really think it's fair.
What Avatar has done for cinema overall should also be taken into account. A lot of cinemas are really struggling financially, a film like Avatar is fantastic for them.
Having said that they didn't give the first LotR film an Oscar. Since they announced sequels maybe they'll wait and give it one of them instead.
Agreed, in 10 years nobody is going to remember THL but they will remember Avatar. LOTR 1 won 4 oscars. Not best picture though if that's what you're talking about.
. . .
are u guys seriously judging the quality of a film by its commercial success? u guys r just being sarcastic right?
Reading that link brings up very bitter feelings again. I'm still supremely bitter that JULIA roberts won over ELLEN BURSTYN that year. I mean seriously, what the fuck?
I didn't watch it, but I really hope James Horner didn't get the Oscar for the best OST for Avatar. He had 6 months and a budget of 15 millions, and he did that. Really, he doesn't deserve it.
On March 08 2010 23:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote: bleh I'm really disappointed that Avatar didn't take home the best picture, it definitely deserved it
Really? Because I feel that if Avatar won best picture the Oscars would have been a total joke.
Yeah imagine the highest grossing movie of all time winning best picture, what a joke.
I understand that they want to give awards to great effort and try to overlook box office success but in this case I think they made a mistake.
Avatar was a global success, the hurt locker might make some good socials points and be very meaningful to middle/upper-class Americans but worldwide no-one gives a shit. Something that has Global appeal vs a "flavour of the month" film. I don't really think it's fair.
What Avatar has done for cinema overall should also be taken into account. A lot of cinemas are really struggling financially, a film like Avatar is fantastic for them.
Having said that they didn't give the first LotR film an Oscar. Since they announced sequels maybe they'll wait and give it one of them instead.
Agreed, in 10 years nobody is going to remember THL but they will remember Avatar. LOTR 1 won 4 oscars. Not best picture though if that's what you're talking about.
. . .
are u guys seriously judging the quality of a film by its commercial success? u guys r just being sarcastic right?
If this were the case, New Moon deserves a Best Picture Oscar more than No Country for Old Men.
On March 09 2010 04:10 StayFrosty wrote: I can't believe Avatar didn't win best picture. I am downloading Hurt Locker right now and it better be the best fucking movie i've ever seen!
I'm sorry to say it but I think its overrated. Didn't really like it at all, came in expecting something completely different, that might be the reason why it didn't impress me. Don't get me wrong, it's not a BAD movie, but nowhere close to six oscars.
THL is good, but it resonates a lot with the political demography of hollywood, is one of the best non major studio but still mainstream movies of recent years, and above all, is very very American. Those I feel like are the primary factors in the film's ridiculous overwhelming critical success. Personally I thought most of the foreign language film nominees are better than THL. I made a blog about THL way back when it first came out
On March 08 2010 23:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote: bleh I'm really disappointed that Avatar didn't take home the best picture, it definitely deserved it
Really? Because I feel that if Avatar won best picture the Oscars would have been a total joke.
Yeah imagine the highest grossing movie of all time winning best picture, what a joke.
I understand that they want to give awards to great effort and try to overlook box office success but in this case I think they made a mistake.
Avatar was a global success, the hurt locker might make some good socials points and be very meaningful to middle/upper-class Americans but worldwide no-one gives a shit. Something that has Global appeal vs a "flavour of the month" film. I don't really think it's fair.
What Avatar has done for cinema overall should also be taken into account. A lot of cinemas are really struggling financially, a film like Avatar is fantastic for them.
Having said that they didn't give the first LotR film an Oscar. Since they announced sequels maybe they'll wait and give it one of them instead.
Agreed, in 10 years nobody is going to remember THL but they will remember Avatar. LOTR 1 won 4 oscars. Not best picture though if that's what you're talking about.
. . .
are u guys seriously judging the quality of a film by its commercial success? u guys r just being sarcastic right?
The quality of a movie should also not be judged upon according to a highly political and institutionalized "academy" of arts.
On March 09 2010 02:59 Beaudereck wrote: I didn't watch it, but I really hope James Horner didn't get the Oscar for the best OST for Avatar. He had 6 months and a budget of 15 millions, and he did that. Really, he doesn't deserve it.
the soundtrack was amazing, he definitely deserved it
it deserved to win best picture like Leta deserves to win an OSL/MSL. Seems really good until you take a closer look and see how flawed and limited they actually are...aka should never, ever, ever happen.
that's a terrible analogy just for the fact that a movie can't be judged better than another movie objectively, yet a player can be objectively better than another in Starcraft by beating them
you can point out flaws and limitations of anything if you try to, it's a matter of perception and appreciation for art
Really? Because I feel that if Avatar won best picture the Oscars would have been a total joke.
On March 09 2010 08:45 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: THL and Avatar both sucked IMO. I was pulling for Inglorious Bastards and District 9 myself. Or Up just for kicks.
It sucks D9 didn't get anything. It should have at least won film editing (instead of the hurt locker); the way it flicked between the documentary was very clever. Or maybe it could have won adapted screenplay.
I think the way they vote for the Oscars must be pretty stupid, you shouldn't get one film just sweep everything because it's the flavour or the month. Oh and btw the producer of THL was banned from the awards because he sent emails to all the judges insisting they should vote for his film. Obviously it worked and now he's gonna make shit loads of money.
On March 09 2010 08:45 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: THL and Avatar both sucked IMO. I was pulling for Inglorious Bastards and District 9 myself. Or Up just for kicks.
It sucks D9 didn't get anything. It should have at least won film editing (instead of the hurt locker); the way it flicked between the documentary was very clever. Or maybe it could have won adapted screenplay.
I think the way they vote for the Oscars must be pretty stupid, you shouldn't get one film just sweep everything because it's the flavour or the month. Oh and btw the producer of THL was banned from the awards because he sent emails to all the judges insisting they should vote for his film. Obviously it worked and now he's gonna make shit loads of money.
On March 09 2010 08:45 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: THL and Avatar both sucked IMO. I was pulling for Inglorious Bastards and District 9 myself. Or Up just for kicks.
It sucks D9 didn't get anything. It should have at least won film editing (instead of the hurt locker); the way it flicked between the documentary was very clever. Or maybe it could have won adapted screenplay.
I think the way they vote for the Oscars must be pretty stupid, you shouldn't get one film just sweep everything because it's the flavour or the month. Oh and btw the producer of THL was banned from the awards because he sent emails to all the judges insisting they should vote for his film. Obviously it worked and now he's gonna make shit loads of money.
I was quite disappointed when District 9 or Inglorious Basterds didn't get anything (other than supporting actor). They were both very good films that had a lot of qualities over The Hurt Locker or Avatar. The Hurt Locker to me was kinda dull and tried to have a bit of meaning but there are just so many better war films. Avatar only had visual effects; the plotline was very dry. District 9 and Inglorious Basterds were both something fresh, and great movies at the same time.
EPT
? 
![[image loading]](http://ilpeggio.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mecha-babura-streisanda.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://open.salon.com/blog/sheldon_the_wonderhorse/2009/02/08/files/shaft_movie1234141873.jpg)
