Support NeoGAF

[DY_nasty]

City of God >>>> Slumdog

In every way.

 

[Dresden]

anybody notice the opening scene of the childhood in slumdog, is almost a complete rip off of city of god?

Slumdog is basically Lord of the Rings in Bollywood, but without the magic, hobbits, or rings.

 

[EviLore]

Slumdog is basically Lord of the Rings in Bollywood, but without the magic, hobbits, or rings.

Or lords!

 

[jtb]

This year sucked for movies. My take on the best picture nominees I did see:

The Hurt Locker: The MOST underdeserving film of the praise its been getting. Don't get me wrong - it's a fantastic film, but its underwhelming, the plot is far too loose for my tastes, and it really is just a thriller that happens to take place in the Iraq War. Scenes don't drive the plot forward, they merely create tense scenes that demand some sort of heart-pounding resolution (basically the entire sniper section). The whole non-political aspect really detracted from the experience, not because I want to see a blatantly anti-war movie, but because I really felt like all it did was scratch the surface of this loaded topic and I really wanted Bigelow to go further - in any direction. That said, it's still going to win - and it should (seeing as how its the best of the ones I've seen).

Avatar: It is what it is - the best big-budget blockbuster hit of the year. James Cameron shows Michael Bay how to make movies, and destroys all other special effects driven movies in the process. Enjoyed it, and it could win.

Up in the Air - Won't win, shouldn't win; I got sucked into the hype for this one when it was the early frontrunner. Emotionally underwhelming, disappointing performances, just a really low-key movie for me. It was good, but nowhere near "best picture" caliber.

Inglourious Basterds - the dark horse of the race. Great acting, great script, great direction. Tarantino doing what he does best. I hope it wins. It won't.

Up - Pixar has consistently underwhelmed me since Cars. This was no exception.

District 9 - Really great first half, falls apart in the last third. Neill Blomkamp has great things ahead of him, but Best Picture is not one of them.

Blind Side - I know this was a bad year for movies and all, but I'd rather have Invictus than this trash on here (and Invictus was pretty disappointing)

I can only hope that 2010 will deliver quality - though the only two films I'm actually looking forward to at this point are Leaves of Grass and The Social Network...

 

[Timber]

-And, in the end, our hero comes back for a 'sequel', likely to continue defying the laws of probability that we have been shown govern everybody else.

yeah, i thought this was a brilliant and delightfully subversive ending- another great twist on action movie practices. the hero is back in action and a badass riff starts playing, a cue for the audience to go "hell yeah!" and feel totally awesome. but the hero has just abandoned his family and all the responsibilites of 'Real Life'. the camera pans out and he's walking completely alone and isolated.

 

[Dresden]

yeah, i thought this was a brilliant and delightfully subversive ending- another great twist on action movie practices. the hero is back in action and a badass riff starts playing, a cue for the audience to go "hell yeah!" and feel totally awesome. but the hero has just abandoned his family and all the responsibilites of 'Real Life'. the camera pans out and he's walking completely alone and isolated.

Squall dies.

 

[wenis]

Wait wait, The Blind Side is that football movie with Sandra Bullock? Wow. Hell, put Crank 2 in there then.

They goddamn should...wheres the category for best ass kicking of the year.
Statham deserves it.

 

[DY_nasty]

They goddamn should...wheres the category for best ass kicking of the year.
Statham deserves it.

Ong Bak 2.

But they don't have a category for awesome yet.

 

[crazy monkey]

Slumdog is basically Lord of the Rings in Bollywood, but without the magic, hobbits, or rings.

dude people hate slumdog in bollywood beside it was not a bollywood movie

 

[Stabby McSter]

I want Up to win Best Picture actually

Spoiler

although Wall-E was clearly more deserving

.

But I know it won't, so I'm rooting for Inglourious Basterds.

I feel like The Hurt Locker won't win Best Picture because of that producer email sent out a few weeks back.

What do I know? Absolutely nothing.

So Precious is gonna win. D:

 

[JGS]

The Hangover should have been nominated for best picture too. If Avatar and The Blind Side are nominated then why not The Hangover?

Can't speak for Blind Side, but the reason Avatar was nominated over it was because it was better.

I personally don't think 2009 was that bad of a year. I saw more 3 star caliber movies than ever and the sci-fi was top notch for what it was.

Star Trek should have had District 9's place. I liked it fine, but it was 10 times more predictable than Avatar. What made it good was the setting and the lead actor because the villians and story certainly didn't do it.

Avatar & Up were my movies of the year & thought that Where the Wild Things Are should be acknowledged for a great experience.

I have a hard time believing Hurt Locker will win, but it's won so many things so far. However, if it does win, it won't be based on the number of people that saw and loved it. It will be based on who directed it and the snowball of hype it received.

Most of the films have underwhelmed in relation to their hype so much that I couldn't care less who actually wins the thing. I sort of wish they would go back to five nominees. I may have disagreed in any given year, but now it feels like they are just trying to fill slots without actually judging the quality of a film.

 

[WrikaWrek]

District 9 was 10 times more predictable than Avatar? A movie that children can pinpoint plot points 30 minutes before they happen? :lol

District 9 is a much more unexpected movie than Avatar. And Star Trek should be in there yes, in Avatars place.

(Blind Side of course yes)

it won't be based on the number of people that saw and loved it. It will be based on who directed it and the snowball of hype it received.

So much is wrong with this statement.

 

[JGS]

District 9 was 10 times more predictable than Avatar? A movie that children can pinpoint plot points 30 minutes before they happen? :lol

District 9 is a much more unexpected movie than Avatar. And Star Trek should be in there yes, in Avatars place.

(Blind Side of course yes)



So much is wrong with this statement.

EDITED THE WHOLE THING:lol

What was unexpected about it? Believe me, there's no need to spoiler it.

Notice I didn't say I think Avatar should win, just that it was my favorite. I'm sorry/happy if that puts me in a children's category. Both were predictable, but Avatar did it better.

Also, I liked Hurt Locker (***), but it's box office indicates no one saw it. This doesn't have anything to do withthe idea that top Box Office wins awards since we all know that not true, but the box office for Hurt Locker was anemic. This would mean that most of the ones voting would have to go to a screener or see it on DVD.

Past interviews with voters seems to indicate that they don't tend to make up their mind at those times. They either vote for what they thought was best or what they want to win. Many voters want hurt Locker to win because it will be historic. Cameron's already got his Oscar.

 

[Timber]

However, if it does win, it won't be based on the number of people that saw and loved it. It will be based on who directed it and the snowball of hype it received.

quite a few things about these types of comments are baffling to me

1. where and how did you gather the expertise to present such an opinion as fact?

2. where and how did you gather the knowledge that people didn't see and enjoy the hurt locker?

if the implication was that it wasn't as widely seen as avatar, then that's true, but that doesn't have much bearing on a restricted voting process.

if the implication was that you've observed many negative opinions regarding the hurt locker, then it must be said that the exact same goes for its sole competitor, avatar.

3. does the fact that you're saying that bigelow will win because she's a woman doesn't strike you as a bit sexist?

 

[JGS]

quite a few things about these types of comments are baffling to me

1. where and how did you gather the expertise to present such an opinion as fact?

2. where and how did you gather the knowledge that people didn't see and enjoy the hurt locker?

if the implication was that it wasn't as widely seen as avatar, then that's true, but that doesn't have much bearing on a restricted voting process.

if the implication was that you've observed many negative opinions regarding the hurt locker, then it must be said that the exact same goes for its sole competitor, avatar.

3. does the fact that you're saying that bigelow will win because she's a woman doesn't strike you as a bit sexist?

1. Looking at box office results and the fact that few people talk about the movie outside of the media (& Gaf and really they don't talk about it too much either). I gave the other reason in my previous post.

EDIT- Unless I use citations of one kind or another, it's probably best to assume anyone stating something as fact is probably just saying their opinion. It's not like I take negative statements about movies I like as fact and neither should you. That also should stop any bafflement.

2. Where did I say they didn't enjoy the Hurt Locker? I enjoyed Hurt Locker immensely. It's just a simply fact that very few saw it unless it was for free.

Nothing was more seen than Avatar, so that's a moot point.

Box office does not win awards, but there is usually sufficient revenue to suggest a proper amount have seen it. That is not the case with Hurt Locker.

3. Please tell me you're not naive enough to think that votes are fair at the Oscars. It's not her fault either and it's not just because she's a woman. If there were more women directors, there would be just as good as the guys with Bigelow on top imo.

Any particular group likes setting precedent. That's all I'm saying. Some accused Crash of winning for the same reasons. Did that make it a racist vote? Titanic was accused of winning for box office. Shakespeare In Love won for a marketing campaign. Why would it be odd for Hurt Locker to win because of a woman director & it being good? It's certainly a better pic than Prince of Tides ever was.

I had no idea that my comments would hit some of you so hard. I would not have been so blunt if I knew there was this much emotion with the nominations so I apologize. I said I liked Hurt Locker just fine. Man, you would think some of you had a financial interest in the films!:lol

 

[MIMIC]

If either Precious or Inglourious Bastards won, I'd be satisfied....even though this year's field for Best Picture was pretty mediocre compared to previous years.

 

[Timber]

Where did I say they didn't enjoy the Hurt Locker? I enjoyed Hurt Locker immensely. It's just a simply fact that very few saw it unless it was for free.

Box office does not win awards, but there is usually sufficient revenue to suggest a proper amount have seen it. That is not the case with Hurt Locker.

but the people who are eligible to vote will see it because they have to vote.

Please tell me you're not naive enough to think that votes are fair at the Oscars. It's not her fault either and it's not just because she's a woman. If there were more women directors, there would be just as good as the guys with Bigelow on top imo.

Any particular group likes setting precedent. That's all I'm saying. Some accused Crash of winning for the same reasons. Did that make it a racist vote? Titanic was accused of winning for box office. Shakespeare In Love won for a marketing campaign. Why would it be odd for Hurt Locker to win because of a woman director & it being good? It's certainly a better pic than Prince of Tides ever was.

i don't pretend that the oscar voting process is infallible and that politics are never played. but i do take issue with the claim that it's absolutely out of the question that an excellent movie like the hurt locker can win by virtue of its quality. "& it being good" is something that you didn't mention in your initial statement.

I had no idea that my comments would hit some of you so hard.

don't flatter yourself

 

[JGS]

but the people who are eligible to vote will see it because they have to vote.

Not true. The voters are not required to see anything, but they are expected to. This is why the studios work so hard to make sure their movies are seen. There are no Oscar police.

But that's not what I was talking about anyway. I'm talking about interest in a movie, not whether a person can see it. Besides, even if they were forced to see everything (I'm sure most of them do) if they didn't see it at the time of release, why would seeing it later sway them over a movie they have loved since it first came out? This is especially the case when it's a topic that time and again is shown not to hold people's interest?

i don't pretend that the oscar voting process is infallible and that politics are never played. but i do take issue with the claim that it's absolutely out of the question that an excellent movie like the hurt locker can win by virtue of its quality. "& it being good" is something that you didn't mention in your initial statement.

It would be helpful if you refrained putting words in my texts. This is what I said:

I have a hard time believing Hurt Locker will win, but it's won so many things so far. However, if it does win, it won't be based on the number of people that saw and loved it. It will be based on who directed it and the snowball of hype it received.

Now where did I say it was out of the question again? I said I have a hard time believing it will win based on my view of it. I indicate that contradicts the fact it has won a lot of things. I then give my opinion of why it could win which I choose to stick to. Sorry.

I do believe Bigelow is pretty much a lock for Best Director which my post history would reflect if you can pull it up. I just lean toward it being a split vote

don't flatter yourself

I'm not. You are. Others have said harsher things than me about Hurt Locker, but for some reason my post warrants an incorrect response. OK.

 

[JGS]

but the people who are eligible to vote will see it because they have to vote.

http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/are-last-minute-votes-wasted-14064

Found this as back-up to what I said although there are some exceptions.

I thought I read that Ernest Borgnine et al refused to see OR vote for “Brokeback Mountain.” I'm assuming he's a member of the Academy? CAN you refuse to see a movie up for an Oscar if you’re a voting member of the Academy??

Except in five categories, the Academy uses the honor system. The official position is that members should see all the nominees before voting in any category, but there is no enforcement: it’s up to members to see the movies, either in theaters, at official Academy screenings or at home on screener DVDs. If a member opts not to see something, the Academy doesn’t know and can’t really do anything about it.

Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis, both of whom are Academy members, did indeed say that they had no intention of seeing “Brokeback” when it was nominated for Best Picture in 2006. More recently, at a party for “Inglourious Basterds,” longtime member Mickey Rooney said that he no longer watches any new movies, but his wife said he would nonetheless cast a ballot.

The only exceptions are in the Documentary Feature, Foreign-Language Film and three shorts categories, where voters obtain a ballot only after seeing all the nominees, usually at special Academy screenings.

The Academy has often claimed that members who can’t see all the nominees in a category will abstain from voting in that category. But I asked PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Rick Rosas about this once, and he said that almost all the members vote in every category.

I have seen every nominee in every category for the past several years, and I can testify that it’s not an easy thing to do. But for a member to refuse to see a Best Picture nominee strikes me as an irresponsible dereliction of duty.

 

[Timber]

Now where did I say it was out of the question again?

when you said "However, if it does win [...] It will be based on who directed it and the snowball of hype it received." meaning that if it wins, it's not because it's a good movie. there really are no two ways to interpret this. i replied to your post because i have seen many like it lately, on gaf and elsewhere, that completely dismiss the idea that the hurt locker might win because it's good. the whole 'female director' angle is wretched beyond belief. the hurt locker could have been any other movie released in any other year directed by any other woman and the exact same things would have been said about it. dozens of male directors have won the oscar and it takes just one female to stand a fighting chance and in come the "it's because she's a woman" comments. it's offensive drivel. i'm not flattering myself by replying to your post; it's what people do on internet forums. oh no deary me, anything but an incorrect response!

 

[brianjones]

i found this pretty funny

:lol

 

[NetMapel]

So will there be streaming of the Oscars (red carpet included) available online ?

 

[MIMIC]

i found this pretty funny

*poster*
:lol

I....don't get it. Is this poster saying the movie was bad?

 

[brianjones]

I....don't get it. Is this poster saying the movie was bad?

no i think it deals with the really uncomfortable subject matter.

i can relate cause i havent seen it for this reason

 

[CassSept]

If there is a god, Cameron will win Best Director over Bigelow.

If there is a God Tarantino will win Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Inglorious Basterds will win Best Picture.

Sadly, I guess none of these will happen. So I just hope Hurt Locker will win best movie.

 

[BowieZ]

So will there be streaming of the Oscars (red carpet included) available online ?

Most definitely. I'm sure many links will be posted leading up to it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

If there is a God Tarantino will win Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Inglorious Basterds will win Best Picture.

Thank god there's no god.

(Still need to see IB, I'm still kicking myself for missing it in theaters.)

 

[Gigglepoo]

If there is a God Tarantino will win Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Inglorious Basterds will win Best Picture.

I'm just relieved we're finally going to get a definitive answer about this whole deity thing tomorrow.

 

[JGS]

when you said "However, if it does win [...] It will be based on who directed it and the snowball of hype it received." meaning that if it wins, it's not because it's a good movie. there really are no two ways to interpret this. i replied to your post because i have seen many like it lately, on gaf and elsewhere, that completely dismiss the idea that the hurt locker might win because it's good. the whole 'female director' angle is wretched beyond belief. the hurt locker could have been any other movie released in any other year directed by any other woman and the exact same things would have been said about it. dozens of male directors have won the oscar and it takes just one female to stand a fighting chance and in come the "it's because she's a woman" comments. it's offensive drivel. i'm not flattering myself by replying to your post; it's what people do on internet forums. oh no deary me, anything but an incorrect response!

You're reading too much into my comments and then not reading other parts. I have repeatedly said Hurt Locker is a great movie in this and other threads.

Maybe if I switch movies it will give you some perspective with a few changes to highlight the differences:

I have a hard time believing Up will win, although so many people love it. However, if it does win, it won't be based on the number of people that saw it and loved it. It will be based on it being the first animated movie to win.

I truly believe that about one of my favorite movies from last year. Hurt Locker has a much better chance than Up, but a win by it would contradict Oscar history and it would have the distinct pleasure of being the lowest earning winner (not adjusted for inflation no less) in at least 30 years- by almost a fourth. Under normal circumstances, that makes it a longshot. IMO, the ONLY way to overcome this was buzz, hype, and a sense of being a precedent setter.

I gave a reason why it won't win on only it's merits and I'm sticking to them. Not only did you misconstrue the above comment which is understandable since I did not explain it too well. However, after I explained it, you take umbrage with that.

When it comes to the merits of film, I go for the Critics awards shows because they have seen all the films and are pretty objective regarding their picks, without regard to external factors in most cases. I truly believe that with the Oscars, it's just an honor to get nominated- especially with this years list of mostly 3 star offerings.

EDIT- I forgot, it is not wretched at all for a woman to win an Academy Award when so many people love the movie in question. Hurt Locker has already won the critical approval.

The argument really boils down to whether the Oscars are political or not. I say yes, you may say otherwise apparently.

 

[Barrett2]

Haven't seen all the nominees this year, but I really wasn't overly impressed with anything in particular. I thought District 9, Inglorious and Hurt Locker were all good, but not amazing. Avatar has no business being nominated for best picture. IMO, Inglorious should win.

FWIW, Moon was my favorite movie of the year.

 

[Timber]

IMO, the ONLY way to overcome this was buzz, hype, and a sense of being a precedent setter.

i'd argue that another possible reason for this is lack of a valid alternative. i haven't seen avatar and 3 of the other nominees, but it seems to me that it wasn't exactly a strong batch of contenders this year. that should pull the odds in the hurt locker's favour quite a bit.

EDIT- I forgot, it is not wretched at all for a woman to win an Academy Award when so many people love the movie in question. Hurt Locker has already won the critical approval.

The argument really boils down to whether the Oscars are political or not. I say yes, you may say otherwise apparently.

well, i'm not saying the oscars are devoid of politics. i just have problems with the notion that they're the only factors at play when it comes to the hurt locker's possible victory. but if that isn't what you're saying then i withdraw my argument.

 

[Zeliard]

Well besides the fact that Saving Private Ryan also didn't win best picture (lol), no i don't think the Hurt Locker is as good as Private. But isn't that stupid? I mean, should any nominee then, be only nominated if they are as good as movies of other years? And not because they are better than movies of its own year?

I'm not saying that Hurt Locker can't be a nominee because it isn't as good. I'm saying it's getting a great deal of praise despite striking me as a good movie, but pretty unremarkable.

As a relatively recent American war-themed movie, SPR is infinitely superior. The reason I brought that film up is because it was the last prominent Best Picture war movie nominee. We don't get very many of those. The only one we got in between SPR/Thin Red Line in 1998 and Hurt Locker in 2010 was Letters from Iwo Jima, and that was from the POV of the Japanese rather than the Americans. Prior to all that, it a couple of 1980s Oliver Stone movies - Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July, the latter of which was more of a character study than a war movie.

Platoon, Saving Private Ryan and Thin Red Line are all vastly superior to The Hurt Locker.

 

[Timber]

ewwwwwwwwww, saving private ryan

 

[WrikaWrek]

EDITED THE WHOLE THING:lol

What was unexpected about it? Believe me, there's no need to spoiler it.

Notice I didn't say I think Avatar should win, just that it was my favorite. I'm sorry/happy if that puts me in a children's category. Both were predictable, but Avatar did it better.

Also, I liked Hurt Locker (***), but it's box office indicates no one saw it. This doesn't have anything to do withthe idea that top Box Office wins awards since we all know that not true, but the box office for Hurt Locker was anemic. This would mean that most of the ones voting would have to go to a screener or see it on DVD.

Past interviews with voters seems to indicate that they don't tend to make up their mind at those times. They either vote for what they thought was best or what they want to win. Many voters want hurt Locker to win because it will be historic. Cameron's already got his Oscar.

The whole movie, Avatar is cliche after cliche, it's a deja vu. District 9 had uncommon main characters, it was harsher, the transformation to the main character isn't all rainbows, and the situation in which aliens are placed on earth isn't a simple been there done that, New World Pocahontas situation.

If anything, the main characters decision at the end to show what we call "humanity", is unexpected, and some would say unwarranted and sort of cheap, but still he receives serious consequences for it. In Avatar, it's all very hollywood, expected, and i heard kids predicting what was gonna happen 20 min before it happened, because everything is so obvious it hurts, and maybe that's why it's so successful too, the movie never fails anybody's expectations, and it does exactly what everyone thinks it will do.

And still i don't understand what you are trying to say about The Hurt Lockers votes, it's so weird, do you think that the public votes for these movies or something? The movie has won every award worth its salt so far. That's why people think it can win.

I'm not saying that Hurt Locker can't be a nominee because it isn't as good. I'm saying it's getting a great deal of praise despite striking me as a good movie, but pretty unremarkable.

As a relatively recent American war-themed movie, SPR is infinitely superior. The reason I brought that film up is because it was the last prominent Best Picture war movie nominee. We don't get very many of those. The only one we got in between SPR/Thin Red Line in 1998 and Hurt Locker in 2010 was Letters from Iwo Jima, and that was from the POV of the Japanese rather than the Americans. Prior to all that, it a couple of 1980s Oliver Stone movies - Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July, the latter of which was more of a character study than a war movie.

Platoon, Saving Private Ryan and Thin Red Line are all vastly superior to The Hurt Locker.

They are all vastly different movies from Hurt Locker, in vastly different wars, with vastly different generations.

And only Saving Private Ryan is in place to equal/surprass Hurt Locker as thrill ride. Platoon and Thin Red Line don't work at all, as action movies.

The comparison is stupid.

 

[Puddles]

Avatar, The Hurt Locker and IB are really the only films that have any business winning the big award. Any other film winning would be pretty stupid, IMO.

And Cameron needs to win Best Director. As great as The Hurt Locker was, Bigelow wasn't juggling half as much as Cameron was while filming it.

 

[Xater]

I just want to say that that I'll be really upset if Avatar wins anything besides the technical awards. I'm rooting for Inglorious Basterds. Can't say much about the Hurt Locker. I have baught the Blu-ray but have yet to watch the film.

 

[WrikaWrek]

I just want to say that that I'll be really upset if Avatar wins anything besides the technical awards. I'm rooting for Inglorious Basterds. Can't say much about the Hurt Locker. I have baught the Blu-ray but have yet to watch the film.

Don't watch The Hurt locker because you have to.

Wait for the dust to settle, and then one day just put it on your blu Ray, dim the lights, crank that sound up, and watch the movie without always trying to search for what makes it great.

Worst way to watch a movie, is to look for things in it, you watch a movie and let it bring the things it has to you.

IMO

 

[BowieZ]

I just hate how we KNOW 95% of the winners already. Best Picture may be up in the air (EDIT: Oh shi-- no pun intended), although I'm not particularly crazy about either Avatar or The Hurt Locker.

I just wish, for example, Inglourious Basterds could win Best Picture... but that's strictly IMPOSSIBLE. Seriously, it's IMPOSSIBLE. Which sucks.

I just wish there were a way in which every single nominee could conceivably win, making every category a surprise. I guess you'd just have to live under a rock for 6 months to experience that, though.

 

[Xater]

I just hate how we KNOW 95% of the winners already. Best Picture may be up in the air (EDIT: Oh shi-- no pun intended), although I'm not particularly crazy about either Avatar or The Hurt Locker.

I just wish, for example, Inglourious Basterds could win Best Picture... but that's strictly IMPOSSIBLE. Seriously, it's IMPOSSIBLE. Which sucks.

I just wish there were a way in which every single nominee could conceivably win, making every category a surprise. I guess you'd just have to live under a rock for 6 months to experience that, though.

At least best original screenplay should be a lock for Inglorious Basterds.

 

[StriKeVillain]

So how was Moon not nominated? I can't understand that.

 

[WrikaWrek]

I just wish, for example, Inglourious Basterds could win Best Picture... but that's strictly IMPOSSIBLE. Seriously, it's IMPOSSIBLE. Which sucks.

I just wish there were a way in which every single nominee could conceivably win, making every category a surprise. I guess you'd just have to live under a rock for 6 months to experience that, though.

I don't think it's impossible for IB to win at all.

 

[eXistor]

I've stopped caring about the oscars since...forever. That said, all Inglourious Basterds related noms should win.

 

[BowieZ]

I don't think it's impossible for IB to win at all.

Well, either I really do think it is literally impossible, or thinking it is a way to ensure my hopes are not dashed.

 

[Puddles]

I just want to say that that I'll be really upset if Avatar wins anything besides the technical awards.

More and more I find myself wanting Avatar to win JUST to piss off you and your kind.

 

[dmshaposv]

As I've said countless times, Inglorious Basterds should win Best Pic and Best Screenplay.

Cameron for Best Director.

Hurt Locker is pretty good, but immensely overated.

 

[VeryGooster]

Guess I'm not watching this on TV because of the Cablevision/Disney hair-pulling.

 

[Xater]

More and more I find myself wanting Avatar to win JUST to piss off you and your kind.

For yur information, when I had to review Avatar I was very positive about it. I just don't think it is anywhere near best movie of the year quality. I would have replaced it with Moon for example.

 

[Puddles]

For yur information, when I had to review Avatar I was very positive about it. I just don't think it is anywhere near best movie of the year quality. I would have replaced it with Moon for example.

If there was a "Goodfellas," a "Chinatown," or hell, even a "The Departed" this year, I'd agree with you. But nothing released this year really stood out to me as an all-time classic. We got a mid-tier Coen Bros. film, a Reitman film that isn't as good as Thank You For Smoking, a pretty good Iraq war movie, a mid-tier Pixar film, the most emotionally exploitative film ever about an overweight black chick, and I guess a genuinely great film in Inglorious Basterds.

So yeah, it should really be IB or Avatar. Or maybe The Hurt Locker.

 

[WrikaWrek]

If there was a "Goodfellas," a "Chinatown," or hell, even a "The Departed" this year, I'd agree with you. But nothing released this year really stood out to me as an all-time classic. We got a mid-tier Coen Bros. film, a Reitman film that isn't as good as Thank You For Smoking, a pretty good Iraq war movie, a mid-tier Pixar film, the most emotionally exploitative film ever about an overweight black chick, and I guess a genuinely great film in Inglorious Basterds.

So yeah, it should really be IB or Avatar. Or maybe The Hurt Locker.

You put The Departed alongside the likes of Chinatown and Goodfellas. And say it's an all time classic.


Yikes man.

 

[Zophar]

So how was Moon not nominated? I can't understand that.

Because it's really not that great.