I've read up enough on it to know this film is not remotely my cup of tea. But hell, given the variety of films that could have gotten best picture this year, they played it safe and went with the predictable. I am *!$%* p***ed off over this. If you like it, great, and I hope i have not upset anyone over my thoughts.
I won't deny that Hurt Locker sounds like a good film, but really... its not exactly groundbreaking or particularly special. Its another war film. And honestly I think that's all it will ever be... another Iraqi/Afghanistan war film. In 10 years no one will care about the Hurt Locker. It'll just be another one of those films that people go "oh yeah it won Academy Award for Best something or other... " and they'll probably confuse it with Saving Private Ryan or Blackhawk Down or one of the Matt Damon films. I'm sure it's good as far as war films go, but... when you think about some of the films we got 2009... and it was "really" the Best Film? I mean Slumdog winning was sorta kinda one of those "okay the little film that could." but honestly when I think of the Best Picture category I think of movies that really stand out, that really grab you by the balls. Something people will talk about for a long long time. As for the technical awards... why? I mean... why? When its paired up next to stuff like Avatar or Star Trek and a war film gets best mixing or editing or something... WHY? Gee like we haven't heard explosions and war sounds in a movie before. But all the hard work guys like Ben Burtt and whoever did Avatar's stuff put into the movies, making sounds for things that don't exist in real life... and they're snubbed. But oh hey let's give it to the guys who mixed sounds that exist in real life and anyone with a good recording package can create... lets give it to them. They're the 'true artists'. Bah
^Burtt is one of the reasons why I think Star Wars should have beaten Annie Hall. George Lucas had a very talented, intelligent and creative group of people working for him on that movie that invented new technologies and vastly improved on existing ones, changing the way movies are made.
Fair enough, but the Oscars are not intended to honor "groundbreaking" films. Otherwise, to be honest, most of the winners would indeed be art house films no one has ever seen because most of the innovation goes on in that venue. The Oscars (in theory - because anything with a voting system is a popularity contest to a degree) are supposed to honor excellence in either a particular field, or a "whole enchilada" situation for Best Picture. "It's another war film". Perhaps, but it may have been another war film with outstanding ensemble performances, great lines of dialogue, emotional impact, originality (hey, anyone who thinks Avatar is original...), pretty pictures, good costumes, etc. The fact it's just another war film -- frankly a lot of people myself included consider Avatar to be just another SF film, albeit one with more pretty pictures than the average. If you really think Saving Private Ryan is being mistaken for Blackhawk Down, clearly the genre is of no interest. The same could be said for Annie Hall, It Happened One Night, Marty, Chicago and the dozens of Best Picture winners who, to somebody, is "just another" comedy, drama, musical, etc...* Clearly spoken by somebody who is not in the industry and who does not understand what goes into sound and editing and all of that. I'm not in the industry either, and occasionally I do wonder why you'll see Oscars for, say, best costumes given to films in which everyone wears suits and ties or cowboy outfits that look like they were bought off the rack at Wal-Mart. Or make-up for some unremarkable modern-day drama. What we don't know is that the people behind Hurt Locker's sound, say, might have gone beyond the call of duty to create the sound scape, and that an educated ear listening to the sound mix might go "holy s*it!" and just go "meh" to something like Avatar or Star Trek. To say that one group of people are "true artists" and one group is not is like someone trying to argue that Da Vinci was a true artist and Picasso was not. And vice versa. The fact is, Avatar may be the biggest movie in history. But that does not make it the best movie in history, or even the best movie of 2009. If you feel box office is a 100% accurate arbiter of a film's quality, then you have to take into account the fact that The Tooth Fairy last I heard was still in the Top 10 nearly 2 months after it was released... Alex * I know Saving Private Ryan didn't win Best Picture. A comedy, Shakespeare in Love did. I'm sure someone griped about Shakespeare being "just another comedy", too.
It's weird to see Sandra Bullock win an Oscar. I had a huge crush on her as a kid, ever since "The Net", which I saw on a birthday when it came out in 1995. Then I looked back at her previous two films "Demolition Man" and "Speed" and the crush became even stronger. I went on to watch every single movie she made from 1996-2004, except "Gun Shy", "Murder By Numbers" and "Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood". Starting with "Speed 2" in 1997, most of the movies she was in were either mediocre or terrible, but I kept watching them anyway, because she was my childhood celebrity crush and I felt obligated to. I stopped going out of my way to see her flicks when I stopped being a teenager in 2003. Her output since 2005 has seemed to maintain her streak of mediocre flicks. I once complained about it on another message board saying it's a shame that someone so beautiful with such a great screen presence is wasting her career on junk. People told me, "Well, I doubt she cares if her movies suck...she's probably laughing all the way to the bank". She became a poster girl of sorts for crappy 'romantic comedies' (I just heard a line on "How I Met Your Mother" where a character says the proof that he knows how to endure the rigors of marriage is in the fact that he's learned how to sit through Sandra Bullock movies), and now she's won a best actress Oscar. I guess it's like with Julia Roberts. She was kind of "America's Sweetheart", who people had become comfortable seeing in lowbrow 'romantic comedies', then she acts in a movie with a serious story and puts on a southern accent and they give her the award basically for all the years of charming them in vanilla movies. So I have mixed feelings about it. It's cool that an actress I was infatuated with in my youth has come this far, but it really looks like she won a popularity contest more than anything else. Oh well, at least her speech was nice. Much better than Lebowski's disappointingly dull one. I was ecstatic that THE DUDE won, but it's too bad he had nothing touching, insightful, or funny to say.
I like Jeff Bridge's acceptence speech. I think he did just fine, and I liked how he dedicated it to his mother/father. Bridges is a hold over from another time, so I am glad he won; finally. Rob
Yeah, I'm glad he won too. I actually just saw his debut "The Last Picture Show" last year and it was one of the best movies I saw that whole year. I also loved his work in "Starman" (one of my favourite sci-fi movies) and the underrated "Tron", which I hope is discovered by more people now that its sequel is on the way. I suppose my post makes it sound like I don't know much about Bridges besides his iconic 1998 role, but it's my familiarity with his whole career that partially influenced my disappointment with how little he had to say. I just think these speeches where people just rattle off a bunch of names have got to go. I read a news story that the Oscars were going to save that for a backstage camera and encourage actors to give speeches with more meat than ones that are mostly just thanking names when they're on stage. What happened to that?
So did anyone else notice how they messed up the timing of the show again. The Academy awards always run overtime, thats nothing new, but a couple things struck me. The best Actor and Actress presentation was way to long and draw out by having 5 people tell stories of the nominated actors. So the show was already running late when they occured. They then had Tom Hanks (who is the Academy Governer BTW,) almost run out on stage and very quickly blurt out the winning film after ironicaly commenting on how there has not been 10 film nominated since 1943. I think his 'rushed' presentation of best film was disgraceful. I know they wanted to get to there respective post-award parties, but jeesh, what a huge contrast between best Actor and Actress and best picture presentation.
Yeah, they really should get rid of that 'best actor'/'best actress' and 'best supporting actor'/'best supporting actress' circle jerk segment. It was cringe-inducing last year, and cringe-inducing this year. We don't need to hear someone read praise off a teleprompter for each of the five nominees in each of those categories while the camera zooms in on the teary nominees. It's just vain self-congratulatory Hollywood bullshit. I remember last year when Sophia Loren was clearly reading her praise off a monitor. How embarassing. Colin Farrell was the only one who sounded natural, but whether it's natural or forced, those speeches are a waste of time.
I generally don't watch the Oscars, but this year I had an article to write, so watched the whole dreary thing. I want those hours back. Fashion bores me (as anyone who has ever met me can attest to ). Inevitably, it seems to me, the dullest of the movies ends up winning. Time had it right, liberal with a message seems to be the winning formula, even if only three people saw it. As for the anti-American, anti-military bent, the filmmakers/writers can take that attitude and cram it up their asses. I didn't like it during the Vietnam era, I don't like it now. Sci-fi always gets dissed. No, I don't necessarily mean Star Trek, which although I've liked the movies, I don't consider them "Best Picture" material. I mean movies like Star Wars (the first two back in the 70s/80s) or E.T. Those were awesome, impressive movies. And what won instead of Star Wars and E.T.? Annie Hall and Gandhi. SNORE! Or how about Raiders of the Lost Ark being beat out by Chariots of Fire? SNORE!
And all of those people were awarded at the Oscars that year. Star Wars walked away with Oscars for art direction, costume design, visual effects, film editing, original score, sound, and the Academy created a second special acheivment award for sound effects awarded to Ben Burtt. Annie Hall is still the better picture, and still one of Allen's best films.
Damn right. In my opinion, anyone saying sci-fi gets snubbed is not coming up with a good example when they value Star Wars over Annie Hall (and I'm not just saying that because I never cared for any Star Wars movies). Annie Hall is not my favourite Woody Allen movie (I find "Manhattan" more satisfying personally), but I think from an objective standpoint it's Allen's most consistently written and directed film, as well as his most creative and original one, which is saying a lot given how innovative, ingenious, and prolific he is. I believe "Gandhi" deserved best picture as well, but arguing in favour of "E.T." over that is something I find a lot more plausible and understandable. "Gandhi" is a little long and dreary at times. I can understand why some might find it overrated and dismiss it as dull Oscar bait. "E.T." is one of the most heartwarming movies ever and one of the most gorgeously shot of Spielberg's movies. I think it was just as worthy of a best picture win as "Gandhi".
I didn't see the whole tribute to the Hollywood personalities who died in the past year, but someone said Farrah Fawcett was not included. What about Brittany Murphy.
Brittany Murphy was in it (as well as Michael Jackson.) Farrah Fawcett, Bea Arthur and Pernell Roberts were -notably- not in it. Considering they're more famous for Charlie's Angels, All in the Family, and Bonaza, respectively; it's likely they'll be honored during the Emmys (either they were in the previous ones, or they will be in the next ones in September.)