This year best picture was expanded to 10 films.
Best Picture
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air
Any thoughts?
Printable View
This year best picture was expanded to 10 films.
Best Picture
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air
Any thoughts?
I posted a long rant about this in the Lat Movie You Saw thread, I suppose I'll just bring it here.
Quote:
The 10 nominations thing is just a way for Hollywood to pat itself on the ***. Maybe I'm just saying this because of how mad I was because The Blind Side was nominated for best picture and not The White Ribbon. It's rather embarressing that in the year with a great film like Precious, there is a film with such superficial and old-fashioned views of African-Americans that the very fact that it's been nominated is insulting. I went to go see it with my family and I found it pitiful how my own dad was crying at some of the most superficial and corny parts, my God, can a movie get more manipulative? Idk, maybe people go for simplistic emotions and simplistic people and overused cliched lines like "I'm not changing his life, he's changing mine."
IMHO Where the Wild Things are was the best picture of the year, that said, I don't expect Oscar to give a children's film the award, especially one that was so controversial. But come on, that was a great film and should've been recognized in some way, maybe a screenplay nom or for special effects?
Either way, my vote is for The Hurt Locker, as well as for Katherine Bigelow winning the directing award (who is in fact James Cameron's ex-wife).
In the other catagories, I've heard enough good things about Jeff Bridges performance for him to win for Crazy Heart (though I certainly wouldn't mind seeing Jeremy Renner win for his manic and complex performance in The Hurt Locker). For best actor in a supporting role, it's Christopher Waltz hands down. Same goes for Mo'Nique for best supporting actress. I really want to see Gabourey Sibide or Carey Mulligan win for best actress, but it's almost a certainty that Hollywood is going to screw good movies over Sandra Bullock's star-role. As for cinematograhy, I must admit that despite that I loved The White Ribbon's visuals, The Hurt Lockers crisp-clean camera work and detail was just too good to ignore. Film editing is another obvious one to The Hurt Locker, the quick-paced editing which just further contributed to the film being a supremely skilled work of art. For foriegn language film, The White Ribbon gets it hands down. I really hope that Avatar doesn't win for score, because it was so unorginal that it was practically unrecognizable. I really liked a lot of the simple folkish music in The Fantastic Mr. Fox, so I'll go for that. As for best adapted screenplay, I've heard that In the Loop was quite clever. Inglorious Basterds is my hands-down choice for original screenplay. Any year with a Tarantino script is a good one.
I didn't hate "The Blind Side" as much as Daniel did, but I really don't see how it could be justified in getting Best Picture. The same goes for "Avatar". I mean, it was a fun time at the movies and the technology displayed was amazing, but the story and characterization was clumsy at best.
I'm pulling for "The Hurt Locker", and "District 9" a little bit. "The Hurt Locker" was probably one of the best movies I've seen all year (Caveat: I haven't seen "Precious", "An Education" or "A Serious Man") and had some truly beautiful, heartbreaking moments. Aside from a slightly one-dimensional bad guy, I thought "District 9" was awesome, and really impressive considering how it gained momentum simply from word of mouth.
Taste always amazes me. See, I thought The Blind side was a good flick, but not best picture worthy (although Sandra Bullock did deserve a nod for her performance). Meanwhile, I thought Where the Wild Things Are was complete garbage of a film.
Inglorious Basterds arrives today from Netflix (haven't seen it yet). The Hurt Locker is the next film on my netflix. Ditto, District 9 after that.
So out of all the ones I actually saw so far in the Best pic category:
Avatar
The Blind Side
Up
Up in the Air
I would honestly vote for Up out of that group, which I thought was a fantastic film. We'll see if my thoughts change after I view some of the other films that are on there way.
In the Loop getting a nomination, as independent as it was, and as amazing as it was, and being in a major category that Avatar was in, I think their many good decisions made up for their couple really terrible ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
And I'd like The Hurt Locker or Inglourious Basterds to win best picture. Those movies were great. I think Inglourious Basterds has a better chance of winning, honestly, whereas Hurt Locker will win in the director category. I think The Hurt Locker might be too much of an independent film to get enough votes. If The Hurt Locker does win Best Picture, it'll mean a lot for the future of independent cinema. This year is really a war between Hollywood (Avatar) and independent (The Hurt Locker). Those are the two favorites, and who the Academy picks will mean a lot in deciding how things have changed. Hollywood has always prevailed since the 40's. So I think this Oscars season will be a special won, and I'm sort of hoping Oscars can prove me right this year, that things have finally changed.
The one thing The Hurt Locker has going for it, is it's not an anti-war film in any conception. It takes no sides, really. In fact, as Roger Ebert has pointed it, it's probably the most pro-military movie that has ever been made. There is nothing like in Apocalypse Now, the movie doesn't try to get political. It just tries to tell the story of a man in the army, and how the war affects him, for good or for bad. If anything, the movie is closest to many of the WWII movies of the 1940's. In these movies, when the handsome husband finally comes back to his loving wife, all he wants is just to go back to war. Because the military is the only thing that makes sense to him. It's some pretty psychological stuff, and I'd reccomend it to anyone, with any political standing. There's no reason any person should not find some truth in this film.
That being said, if i were to draw up a race on who has the most percentage chance of winning Best Picture (based on my own opinion and based on the precursor awards like the golden globes and the DGA's and all of those)
it'd be like this.
1. The Hurt Locker
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. Avatar
4. Precious
5. Up In The Air
6. An Education
the other four i do not believe have any honest chance of winning just based on statistics. (The Blind Side has not won any awards, Up is an animated film so most people will feel like getting the nomination for best picture is a good enough award, District 9 has gotten relatively little buzz compared to the movies above and not won any precursor awards, and Serious Man is also pretty under the radar, and the critics have been pretty torn on this movie.
What I don't understand is why those bottom five are there if they have no chance of winning. They are not even in the race, really, they are just kind of there as token awards in the form of a nomination.
Hurt Locker, I haven't heard much about it except in the last couple of weeks. I saw the trailer and wrote it off as another mindless military-based action film (like Blackhawk Down or something). I haven't read any reviews yet, but I guess it was pretty good eh?
I'm really pulling for Inglorious Bastards. It was great, way to just change historical events and make them awesome. I've never seen anything like that before, and I'm sure it'll be copied in the near future.
Even though I don't agree, I'd say that Avatar is most likely to win. People just won't shut up about that one. Here's my pics for who's most likely to win:
1. Avatar
2. The Hurt Locker (even though I haven't seen it or read any reviews yet, I've heard some significant gushing)
3. Precious
4. Inglorious Bastards
I don't think that it's very likely that anything else will win.
Ooo, it would be fascinating for a Tarantino film to FINALLY win Best Picture. Though Bigelow BETTER win the directing award.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
Really? I've never seen that quote by Ebert, and if so, he is quite wrong. Yes the film is not anti-war, but neither is it pro-war. What makes it a great film and transcendent of other Iraq War dramas, is that politics is almost never mentioned. If you want to lean of the evils of the Bush Administration, then watch a documentary like Taxi to the Dark Side or Farienheit 9/11. But The Hurt Locker is a film purely about the warrior in war and the effects of war on this particular type of person. In a sense it is a film about addiction, just as the films opening quote says "war is a drug". I don't think I've ever heard more truer words about war than in that early scene in which that young soldier talks with his psychiatrist and his fears of death. Also, the final scenes back in America are stunning in their contrast, as well as the psychological truth they carry.[/QUOTE]Quote:
The one thing The Hurt Locker has going for it, is it's not an anti-war film in any conception. It takes no sides, really. In fact, as Roger Ebert has pointed it, it's probably the most pro-military movie that has ever been made. There is nothing like in Apocalypse Now, the movie doesn't try to get political. It just tries to tell the story of a man in the army, and how the war affects him, for good or for bad. If anything, the movie is closest to many of the WWII movies of the 1940's. In these movies, when the handsome husband finally comes back to his loving wife, all he wants is just to go back to war. Because the military is the only thing that makes sense to him. It's some pretty psychological stuff, and I'd reccomend it to anyone, with any political standing. There's no reason any person should not find some truth in this film.
Don't ever write off a film by its trailer. Trailers are made by the production companies and not the directors and thus are manipulated by the company's editing into a bunch of mainstream cliches. Trailers suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
As far as reviews for The Hurt Locker go, it seems to be the best reviewed film of the year. Ebert even placed it at number two on his best of the decade list.
Actually Tarantino's anti-historical narrative technique has already been widely used in postmodern literature, as are most of his narrative innovations. (This is not a criticism of Tarantino, but rather an appraisal that someone has been able to express the creativity and vitality of postmodern narrative)Quote:
I'm really pulling for Inglorious Bastards. It was great, way to just change historical events and make them awesome. I've never seen anything like that before, and I'm sure it'll be copied in the near future.
Holy crap do I feel out of touch. I haven't seen any of those movies. Not one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
no i'm sorry for the confusion. he said it was more positive on the army in general than any other iraq war movies, he didn't say it was a pro-war movie. I was just paraphrasing from his Hurt Locker review, which I thought was an amazing review. I think that's what makes the movie so masterful, it's not full of dated politics, it's full of psycological truths of war that exist in any and every war, no matter how you feel about the war in itself.
I wasn't as big a fan of The Hurt Locker as other people have been, though I do agree it deserves its nomination.
My preferences for best picture would be:
1. Inglorius Basterds
2. Up In The Air
3. Hurt Locker (maybe this could be number two, although my nationalistic tendencies make me want to root for Reitman's film as a Canadian. I'm not nationalistic enough to root for the other Canadian, Cameron.)
4. And then the rest. (I didn't see An Education, Up, or A Serious Man)
I just don't understand the Blind Side being in there, it was a commercial success, but every respected critic trashed the film. Even my mother with her ridiculously white-bread taste realized how condescending that film was.
You know, I wouldn't have had so many problems with it if it wasn't so damn popular. Films like Twilight, Old Dogs and Transformers were much worse, but at least they were sincere in their awfulness. The Blind Side assumes itself to be treated as something profound and moving. And yes while the true story is rather quite moving, the film isn't because it tries way too hard to be moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I swear, I was so annoyed at how everyone in my family were so deeply touched by it. Just a few days ago when we all got together and went out for dinner, there was an extended period of time in which everyone talked about The Blind Side endlessly with great enthusiasm. Many of them seriously cried whilst watching the film. My dad was in tears multiple times throughout the course of it. I'm not saying that one shouldn't cry during a film. But not during a film as condesendingly corny and manipulativly sentimental as this. My God, I was about ready to cry out of the dreadful cliche of it all.
I've only seen three of the films; Inglourious Basterds, Up, and The Hurt Locker. I'm pulling for Inglourious Basterds, but I'm a Tarantino junkie. Up was funny and touching. I wouldn't mind seeing it win, if only because I think it would be cool for an animated film to win best picture. As far as The Hurt Locker goes, it seems I am a member of a very small minority who thinks this movie is highly overrated. I'll admit, the cinematography and the acting were very good, but aside from that, the movie lacked depth. More importantly, it lacked the realism everyone seems to be so caught up on. Call me picky, but when I read time and again that The Hurt Locker is "the most realistic war movie ever", I expect the film makers to at least get the uniforms right (the uniforms, by the way, were probably the smallest inaccuracy in the movie). About the only realistic thing in this movie was the struggle one of the lead characters had readjusting to life back home. I might have enjoyed this movie more if the realism angle hadn't been forced down my throat so much by a bunch of critics who have never been to war.
keep in mind that kathryn bigelow had no help from any members of any branch of the military in any way on this movie. Whereas transformers 2 they were provided with gear and tanks etc etc in the hurt locker she had to make do with what she had. As much as she tried to get the army to help out, they weren't interested, because they did not think the movie would end up being worth their time. The entire movie was shot with almost no budget whatsoever, so to compare it to other huge epic war movies which were huge blockbusters seems kind of unfair. This movie is an independent film, and it's not meant to be much more. The uniforms were made from scratch by her, unlike any other war movie you see, in which the army or navy or marines supplies the film itself with ACTUAL uniforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dustin
I understand she did not have DoD support, but I am not comparing The Hurt Locker to Transformers 2 or any other blockbusters. The inaccuracies I'm complaining about had nothing to do with military support or budget (although it actually would have been cheaper for the film makers to buy the correct uniform. The Army Combat Uniform the characters wear in the movie is about $10-20 more expensive than the Desert Combat Uniform worn when The Hurt Locker is supposed to take place). I was more upset by the utterly rediculous situations the characters encountered. I understand it is a movie, not a documentary, and film makers take some liberties to make it more interesting, but come on. I don't want to take anything away from the men and women of Explosive Ordinance Disposal. Their job is extremely dangerous and they are experts at what they do, but they don't tear through Iraq in 3-man teams clearing building of enemies and pulling off shots that an experienced sniper would have difficulty with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
I was also unimpressed with the depth of the characters. They seemed like cookie cutter copies of just about every other action film; the hard-nosed professional, the rookie, and the reckless wildman. The movie did a decent job with the emotional effects of war, especially with the character filling "the rookie" role, but I felt the movie would be better served had they explored this angle more.
I've seen alot of reviews calling the movie an "edge of your seat" thriller, but I didn't experience that at all. In all of the supposedly tense moments, the outcome seemed pretty obvious, especially the scene with the psychiatrist and the cart.
Like I said in my original post, I might have a different view of the film if the supposed realism had been such a selling point. But when you have Bigelow saying how important it was to tell the story as honestly as possible, and then filling the screen with two hours of completely unbelieveable scenarios, it takes a lot away from what could have been a very good movie.
I'm pretty certain you missed the point of this film. This film is not an action film, it's not a thriller, and it isn't trying to be a thriller. All of these breach of protocol events, like the scene at the end of the film, simply paint the picture for how much the main character has lost it. He will put himself in situations to get nearly killed, because he sees it as a thrill. He seems crazy, but by the end of the film when he returns home, you realize that he is good at one thing: bomb disposal. He lies awake at night obsessing over it, he cares about it so much he has so little room for anything else in his life. This character is not in the least bit cliche or an impossibility, there are so many people like this in so many walks of life. He has so little in his life that he has to fill it with bombs, and for some people, the military can provide that same escape, that amazing high and euphoria. Is it kinda screwed up in a way? Yes. But it's reality. "war is a drug"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dustin
1.EOD does travel in groups of anywhere from 3 to 7
2. Like i said, she would've gladly bought army issue uniforms that might've been more accurate, but the army refused to comply. I cannot think of any war movie where this was the case, i'm not just talking about big budget war movies. Most times when you see the army, the army provides all the uniforms for the different departments. Also the jeep they use is obviously not army issue either, that's because again they were not given access to that. But really the cheapness of the budget is what i enjoy about the uniforms and everything else. Anyone who ever said this is the most accurate war movie was completely lying to you. It's not. Watch Saving Private Ryan or Platoon etc etc. This movie is a character study, nothing more.
Here is a picture of an ACTUAL Army EOD uniform, just for the sake of discussion:
http://newsblaze.com/pix/2006/0625/pix/eod-2.jpg
I really do not see the difference... This is exactly what the uniforms in the movie look like.
3. I would venture to say Inglourious Basterds wasn't the most accurate war film either. Were either films trying to be? No. Might critics have been led to believe this was the case? Possibly. But how can you judge Bigelow using the bias of others? Her work speaks for itself.
EDIT:
That being said, I'm rooting for Inglourious Basterds to win Best Picture, and Bigelow to win Best Director. A part of me wishes An Education had a chance of winning, as that was one of my favorites too.
I finished watching Inglorious Basterds last night. Goooooooood film! It's now my front runner for who I want to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Luckily instead of merely accepting someone's claim as fact we can double check those claims with Rotten Tomato. Rotten Tomatoes Major Critic aggregate notes that out of the major critics 14 gave positive reviews and 10 negative reviews for a total percentage of 58% positive. So clearly your statement that EVERY respected critic trashed the film is untrue and your just making that up (or you merely meant the critics you personally care about). More than half of them in fact gave a positive review of the film.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
The larger rating, which includes all critics, had a 70% positive rating. Technology, gotta love it.
Like I said, I thought it was a good film, but not Oscar worthy beyond Sandra Bullock's performance. The film does have a lot of racial stereotypes, but none that are significantly different than the racial stereotypes found in Avatar.
And am I the only who thought the new Coen brothers film A Serious Man was ****ing incredible? In a perfect world that would win it all.
That movie was **** for me, plain and simple. It was condescending to its audience, and it was condescending to its subject. I'm sorry I don't just think this movie doesn't deserve an Oscar nod, I don't even think it is a decent movie. The best reviews this thing received were of the "heart-warming" and "Sandra Bullock sure can act!" variety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I didn't see it unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
Up in the Air isn't getting much love, but I really liked that movie this year.
You're entitled to your own opinion, hence why I never questioned it. The real issue was that you were making a statement of fact that didn't match up with the actual facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
Again, I understand what you're getting at, but I (and many other veterans) had a hard time looking past how rediculous the movie was to appreciate any other part of it.Quote:
3. I would venture to say Inglourious Basterds wasn't the most accurate war film either. Were either films trying to be? No. Might critics have been led to believe this was the case? Possibly. But how can you judge Bigelow using the bias of others? Her work speaks for itself.
And I'm not judging Bigelow solely from the bias of others. During her DGA award acceptance speech, she said how important it was for her to tell the story "as honestly as possible." I assume she meant honesty as far as the emotional toll, but like I said, the unbelievability of the film takes so much away from that.
They do, but they are ALWAYS escorted by a security element, usually at least a platoon-sized element (+-60) of combat arms soldiers (infantry, cavalry, etc.)Quote:
1.EOD does travel in groups of anywhere from 3 to 7
You don't have to go through the military to get military-issue uniforms. Just do a search for "buy military uniforms," and you will find hundreds, if not thousands, of web sites that sell the exact same uniforms we are issued.Quote:
2. Like i said, she would've gladly bought army issue uniforms that might've been more accurate, but the army refused to comply...
You're right, that is an ACTUAL Army uniform. It is called the Army Combat Uniform (ACU), and all soldiers wear it. We have done so since 2005. Unfortunately, The Hurt Locker is set in 2004, when we wore the Desert Camouflage Uniform (DCU) seen in this picture http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1323/gipm1.jpgQuote:
Here is a picture of an ACTUAL Army EOD uniform, just for the sake of discussion:
http://newsblaze.com/pix/2006/0625/pix/eod-2.jpg
I really do not see the difference... This is exactly what the uniforms in the movie look like
Man, I can't wait to see that one. I usually pick which films to watch based on the director, and I love the Coen brothers (I watched Raising Arizona last night, that's my third favorite after Fargo and The Big Lebowski).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
I also saw The Hurt Locker last night. I liked it, but I didn't love it. Still pulling for Inglorious Bastards.
I know I already gushed about "The Hurt Locker" in here, but Dustin brings up some really good points. I'm not an EOD tech or expert and I don't know their procedures, and there were still some things that stuck out to me.
I don't think it'd be too hard to grab a couple vets (whether EOD or even some other combat arms) and produce something that's relatively technically accurate even without DoD support, especially with the internet and so much of that info readily available.
Call me ignorant, but I really don't know what people found so unrealistic about it. Whilst watching the film, I never doubted it for a second, and according to movie logic, if it looks real, it is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane
Emotionally, I guess it's realistic. I know I found it extremely powerful. But a lot of the tactical and minor details were way off. See Dustin's earlier post for more details, but stuff like them not wearing the right uniforms or SSG James wearing SFC insignia really stuck out.Quote:
Call me ignorant, but I really don't know what people found so unrealistic about it. Whilst watching the film, I never doubted it for a second, and according to movie logic, if it looks real, it is real.
The reason you found it realistic is because (and this isn't a hit on you at all) is that you're not affiliated with the military (at least I don't think you are, correct me if I'm wrong here).
It's like "Top Gun": it was really cool when I was 12, but as I grew up and talked to Naval Aviators about their job and lifestyle, I realized how goofy and inaccurate it is and now when I watch it, it's not the same. And that kind of thing matters to them, because that's their job and it's their life. I've never been on deployment and I'm not EOD, but I imagine "The Hurt Locker" is similar for a lot of those vets.
They had a low budget, they made a good film. I do not see why the uniform thing really matters much, they did what they could with what little money they had. Because it is not technically perfect in every way you cannot enjoy it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dustin
None of it was shot in Iraq. But little details like that could do little to change my ability to enjoy a film, I think back to Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket where the one shot they are supposed to be in Vietnam and you can see the palm trees in the distance which show that it's obviously being shot in Hollywood. That movie is brilliant, even with such things like that.
Ironically, if they'd gone with the DCUs it probably would've been a whole lot cheaper than buying ACUs.Quote:
They had a low budget, they made a good film. I do not see why the uniform thing really matters much, they did what they could with what little money they had. Because it is not technically perfect in every way you cannot enjoy it?
The point isn't the uniforms. Attention to detail is a big thing in the military. For example, I go here:
http://www.usna.edu/homepage.php
When this:
http://chud.com/nextraimages/annapolisposter.jpg
Came out, I was starting to look at the Naval Academy, but I didn't see it until I was a plebe last year. They didn't get anything right (except the uniforms, oddly enough, but I think they had a grad help out), and it stung, since that's what people see of my school and my experience. People think I get yelled at by Tyrese and could get kicked out for not lying about not showering at 0200.
"The Hurt Locker" is a much, much better movie, and one that I like a lot. But not getting some of that stuff rights smacks of sloppiness and a willful ignorance to gather what is in some cases pretty accessible information. I can understand some leaps of faith in order to have a better story, but it detracts from the experience for people who live that life.
I really didn't think any 2009 movies I saw last year were Oscar worthy. Here are my notes on the ones I saw.
*Spoiler Warning*
Inglorious Basterds(2009)- Quinten Tarrantino's masterbatory fantasy about Jews scalping Nazis and killing Hitler at a movie premiere. Aside from the above, I can't say why anyone would want to watch this film. There weren't any really effective camera shots, no great dialogue, or characters. He was going for a suspence thing with really long drawn out interogation scenes but he doesn't really understand what makes suspence. There were too many characters that were unrealized because they didn't have enough screen time or action to develop. Plus, the film stuff was a little heavy handed and reminds me of Scorsese's early work like Who's That Knocking At My Door. What was with that **** about her making a film, and her relationship with the German war hero was a little contrived too. Then the other problem is how self contained the two stories are. The two groups merging to attack the theater never meet each other. And the Nazi Jew Hunter just gave up for no apparent reason. Also, why does he let that chick go at the beginning, and why doesn't he catch her, and where are all the guards that should be attending Hitler for security? The music kind of sucked because Tarantino was obviously stealing from Leone's films and he felt he had to draw attention to what he was doing to make other people make that connection. He gave everyone funny titles like The Bear Jew. Now there is an unrealized character, even though he gets more lines than the others. He says some really cliché **** like “Two hits, me hitting you and you hitting the floor.” Now, his character might really say that, but it's not exactly poetic and realism isn't this movie's selling point anyway. I really expected more from the action sequences after Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Kill Bill. Maniac Cop 2 had better action, and if it weren't such an obvious B movie I'd place it above IB. You know what's a good movie to compare this to, Blackbook. That film was much better if not necessarily great. Tarantino said he tried to make it like Guns of the Navarone but this wasn't that. It wasn't even Force 10 From Navarone. It was more on the level of Where Eagles Dare than Kelley's Heroes. I went in thinking it was going to be like The Dirty Dozen, but it's not that good either. I've just been thinking that having the female actress survive the gunfight in the basement only to kill her when she gets to the premiere is stupid. She repeats her information twice. That's unnecessary duplication, and it would have been interesting to see what plan the Basterds could have come up with without her. Come to think of it, we don't really see the Basterds show off their skills much at all. We hear tales secondhand. We see bodies, but we don't see their actions which earned their reputation. When we should have been doing that we were occupied with the Jewish cinema owner's storyline.
The Hurt Locker(2009)- Not as good as The Kingdom, Jarhead, or Body of Lies, and none of those were particularly good movies either.
District 9(2009)- Terrible first half. Somewhat interesting action in the second. Lousy lead actor, lousy direction, lousy cinematography.
Avatar(2009)- Piece of **** James Cameron blockbuster. Dances with smurfs/pocahontas remake.
Star Trek(2009)- Terrible. Just terrible. Cliché ridden schlock. Bad acting with worse writing covered up by state of the art special effects. My biggest beef would have to be the time travel thing. These villains come back in time to when they can stop the thing they are mad about and instead they decide to **** with the guy who doesn't help them enough in the future. They show up twenty years too early and then after wrecking the place with a space battle they just go away. They wank it for twenty years. How could they do nothing for twenty years and then when they come back everyone is still pissed off? They want to kick ***, and their plan has not changed. The childhood scenes were they start the movie with are awful to a fault. Adolescent Kirk steals his step dad's car, while listening to the Beastie Boys, which by that time must be like ****ing Mozart. And we get Spock getting picked on and his mother insulted so that later we'd believe that he cared when his mother died? I would have believed he loved his mother anyway! Then Kirk gets stranded on an abandoned ice planet, within walking distance of both Spock and Scotty? The story didn't call for most of the characters to do anything, so they just mug around the scene and make allusions to the old series. Scotty has this ****ing animal/alien sidekick/pet now which I find almost as annoying as the slapstick gag thrown in for comic relief that had Scotty being sucked through a series of man sized Willy Wonka tubes. That **** with Kirk's parents was corny as hell, so Abrams cannot write character, but could he at least make the action novel? They ram space ships twice. And Kirk get's promoted to Captain even though he's under arrest and not officially enlisted and they just bypass the entire chain of command! This film was infuriating.
Watchmen(2009)- Good superhero movie, an improvement on the comicbook. Took out all that annoying bull**** toward the end and the copious tangents. Now if only there'd been better acting, or lengthier scenes with taught dialogue. The action was alright, but I've seen better. This was a lot like Sin City or 300, slavishly faithful to the source material, panel for panel, picture for picture, incredibly well done. But coming to the movie after reading the books I was not surprised by the novelty any longer and was not as swept away as I was at first. This story doesn't have reviewability like Casablanca, Shawshank Redemption, or The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.
Angels and Demons(2009)- Better than the first one.
The Hangover(2009)- Basically Dude Where's My Car 2.0.
Terminator Salvation(2009)- Typical thriller. Lots of plotholes. Two parallel storylines that don't fully match up. It was less like Terminator, and more like a very weak Screamers.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine(2009)- Popcorn movie. It always bugs me when people ignore physics in a movie where characters already defy most of Newton's laws with superpowers.
Knowing(2009)- Apocalypse movie, cliché ark Adam and Even type ending. Felt like The Number 33.
Paranormal Activity(2009)- Boring as hell. Just like Blaire Witch Project or Cloverfield.
Sherlock Holmes(2009)- Classic deductive detective fiction with kung fu and explosions.
Tyson(2009)- Alright boxing documentary. Started strong but entered a downward spiral like his career.
My eyes caught this on the first glance of your post, and I decided not to read the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I'll keep that in mind when reading your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
*sigh* Alright, I read your review of Inglorious Bastards. You kind of didn't get it, but that's okay.
Heh. I really liked the new Star Trek film. I have my own review of it on my blog, not posted yet since I'm following your (mortalterror) format, and haven't reached 50 films yet since I started to write a review of each film I watch.
I agree that Star Trek wasn't that bad. It captures the kitsch of the TV show, and I think that was their goal.
Any opinions on best foreign language films?
Of those nominated I've only seen the German one, The White Ribbon; it's so hard to catch foreign films in theaters sometimes. I really liked that film, but I feel like I can't fairly say it deserves the Oscar over the other four nominees.
Movie Bob gives his take on this year's Oscars. Movie Bob always amuses me.
I agree with that point for point. But I like the Smodcast review of Avatar even better. http://www.smodcast.com/ #105 Love Cats. You might also like #90 Forgeticus! where they spend an hour talking about how much they enjoyed the last Harry Potter movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
My thoughts, I'd be surprised if Avatar didn't sew up half the awards just like Titanic did. And I know, I'm like the only person on the planet who didn't like the new Star Trek movie.
My beef with Avatar is that it feels very Phantom Menace to me. Whenever critics can't talk about direction, cinematography, acting, or dialogue and they still want to recommend the movie they mention how technologically innovative the picture was. Technological innovation is not a selling point of truly great films like 8 1/2, Gone With the Wind, 2001 A Space Odyssey, The Bicycle Thief, Pulp Fiction, Casablanca, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Fanny and Alexander, Seven Samurai, Goodfellas, Wild Strawberries, Rashomon, Dr. Zhivago, Schindler's List, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Citizen Kane, Apocalypse Now, Solaris, La Dolce Vita, Full Metal Jacket, M, Raging Bull, The Shawshank Redemption, To Live, or the Fellowship of the Ring.
There are things I liked about Inglorious Basterds, but it's still way overhyped and not as good as other classic war films: All Quiet on the Western Front, Apocalypse Now, Band of Brothers, Full Metal Jacket, Lawrence of Arabia, Master and Commander, Paths of Glory, Patton, Black Hawk Down, The Blue and the Gray, Breaker Morant, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Das Boot, Downfall, Fires on the Plain, The Guns of Navarone, Kanal, Kelley's Heroes, The Longest Day, Platoon, Pretty Village, Pretty Flame, Saving Private Ryan, Stalag 17, Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War, The Thin Red Line, or Zulu. That's what a great war film looks like and I don't think this new one measures up. That's all I'm saying.
Heh. Actually I mentioned Phantom Menace in my review of Avatar. Well, I mentioned the SW prequels. Here is a cut-and-paste of my thoughts on Avatar from my movie review page that isn't up yet:Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Avatar (2009) - Pretty blue furry creatures based off racist stereotypes of Native Americans, check. Simple plot we've seen a hundred times before where the white dude infiltrates the natives and falls in love with their culture and then saves them from complete destruction, check. Heavy-handed environmentalist and colonialist themes, check. In theory there are so many flaws with this film that it should be irredeemable. Even the idea of the avatars themselves seem forced into the movie. After all, the story reveals later on that the Navi banned avatars from living among and closed the education schools they ran, so how does it make any sense that the corporate-sponsored military would be holding out for a diplomatic solution when the original diplomatic efforts already failed by the opening of the movie? Nevertheless, I still must credit to my visceral reactions rather than just my logical reactions to the film. When I do that I not only enjoyed watching the movie, but found myself entranced by its world. To claim that the setting epitomizes the word "gorgeous" is an understatement. The simplistic plot in many ways works to the advantage of this type of film, allowing a stronger immersion into the beautiful world. Nor is the world merely eye-candy as it functions as a significant part of the plot so there is a reason for this intense immersion. It's like being sucked into a lush Rococo painting, except the coquettish French girls are transformed into blue furry warriors. Certainly special effects aren't everything, but this is one of the few films where special effects manage to raise the film to another level. Other special effect heavy films like the Star Wars prequels fail to meet the standards of Avatar because of other mitigating factors like the horrendous dialogue and awful plot (not just a simple and unoriginal one), thus the special effects cannot save such a film. Avatar, on the other hand, while sporting mediocre and predictable dialogue still never quite degenerates into the horrendous dialogue exemplified by the painful love scenes found in the Star Wars prequels. To put it another way, none of the dialogue in Avatar ever stood out as being particularly abysmal the way it did in the SW prequels, while at the same time none of it ever felt like anything I hadn't heard before either. Other reviews I have read pointed out how unbelievable it is that the corporation at the end of the flick didn't retaliate against the Navi by nuking the planet. While this complaint proves valid if one judges the film with the cynical eye of a person living in the modern world, I have to admit that I still appreciated that the natives win in the end. Despite its flaws, I was entertained and the pretty world gave my eyes orgasms. In other words, an average film (if judging by traditional elements like plot, character, dialogue, etc.) made above average by the special effects.
Avatar (2009) - Pretty blue furry creatures based off racist stereotypes of Native Americans, check. Simple plot we've seen a hundred times before where the white dude infiltrates the natives and falls in love with their culture and then saves them from complete destruction, check. Heavy-handed environmentalist and colonialist themes, check. In theory there are so many flaws with this film that it should be irredeemable. Even the idea of the avatars themselves seem forced into the movie. After all, the story reveals later on that the Navi banned avatars from living among and closed the education schools they ran, so how does it make any sense that the corporate-sponsored military would be holding out for a diplomatic solution when the original diplomatic efforts already failed by the opening of the movie? Nevertheless, I still must credit to my visceral reactions rather than just my logical reactions to the film. When I do that I not only enjoyed watching the movie, but found myself entranced by its world. To claim that the setting epitomizes the word "gorgeous" is an understatement. The simplistic plot in many ways works to the advantage of this type of film, allowing a stronger immersion into the beautiful world. Nor is the world merely eye-candy as it functions as a significant part of the plot so there is a reason for this intense immersion. It's like being sucked into a lush Rococo painting, except the coquettish French girls are transformed into blue furry warriors. Certainly special effects aren't everything, but this is one of the few films where special effects manage to raise the film to another level. Other special effect heavy films like the Star Wars prequels fail to meet the standards of Avatar because of other mitigating factors like the horrendous dialogue and awful plot (not just a simple and unoriginal one), thus the special effects cannot save such a film. Avatar, on the other hand, while sporting mediocre and predictable dialogue still never quite degenerates into the horrendous dialogue exemplified by the painful love scenes found in the Star Wars prequels. To put it another way, none of the dialogue in Avatar ever stood out as being particularly abysmal the way it did in the SW prequels, while at the same time none of it ever felt like anything I hadn't heard before either. Other reviews I have read pointed out how unbelievable it is that the corporation at the end of the flick didn't retaliate against the Navi by nuking the planet. While this complaint proves valid if one judges the film with the cynical eye of a person living in the modern world, I have to admit that I still appreciated that the natives win in the end. Despite its flaws, I was entertained and the pretty world gave my eyes orgasms. In other words, an average film (if judging by traditional elements like plot, character, dialogue, etc.) made above average by the special effects.[/QUOTE]
I agree wholeheartedly. When I stopped and thought about it, the film themes are cliched and timeless but I was blindsighted by the environment that I was plunged into and so relished the themes as typical human behaviours. Its like a breath-taking roller coaster ride in the middle of a concrete jungle - you just don't notice the grey bits till its over
Ferngully? Anyone...?
Avater=Ferngully. Effects really cool and I pretty much agree with previews posts about this film. If you haven't seen Ferngully...watch it. Haha
Keeping my fingers crossed for The Hurt Locker!!!
The first time someone told me this, before I saw the movie, I was really confused.Quote:
Avater=Ferngully.
This? Really?
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/O...90965_5491.jpg
Now that I've seen the movie, I get it though.
Trey Parker and Matt Stone did an audio commentary to South Park episode 804 The Passion of the Jew which I think could shed some light on this phenomenon:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I remember seeing this interview that Cameron did for the film and he was talking about how he had to give the film the appearance of depth and background which it actually lacked. His model was The Lord of the Rings with it's fake languages and decades of cultural embroidery. He's making up religions and rituals and hiring exobiologists. By the way, did anyone else have trouble getting into that manhood initiation thing, where he has to catch the bird thing? I was instantly thrown back into the real world and was like "So, what? Now he's going to tame a horse but we're supposed to be all impressed because it doesn't look like a horse?"Quote:
But actually the more that I think about it... Yeah, this movie's success was this weird fluke; but it kind of was genius. The idea of taking that story, making it basically a blood bath, but then doing it all in that Aramaic. Because, you know that they were saying the cheesiest lines that if they were in English you'd be laughing at the ****ing screen, but it's like "Rolo va'sha go'va!" You just couldn't laugh at it. It's that perfect. It kind of bullet proofs your movie.
I will give props were props are do, and the set design is very pretty. But as I told my friends back when Halo 3 came out, "Some cats dig lush tropical rain forests with bright shiny colors, and others want to play Gears of War with it's cityscape full of washed out grays, blacks, and browns." I'm more of an urban guy myself. I love cool architecture, and I didn't care when the primitive smurfs lost their giant hollow mushroom house. Like Kevin Smith said on Smodcast, "In a year, like the place that tree was is like a Starbucks and they're all standing around going 'I don't even miss it.'" As far as the setting goes though, I give more credit to Peter Jackson's production company than Cameron himself.
By the way, good review.