Academy Award Nominations 2010 (Best Picture)

[Drkshadow03]

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?

[DanielBenoit]

I posted a long rant about this in the Lat Movie You Saw thread, I suppose I'll just bring it here.

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.

[Hurricane]

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

[Mathor]

I posted a long rant about this in the Lat Movie You Saw thread, I suppose I'll just bring it here.

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.

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.

[JuniperWoolf]

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.

[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.

Ooo, it would be fascinating for a Tarantino film to FINALLY win Best Picture. Though Bigelow BETTER win the directing award.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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)

[The Comedian]

Holy crap do I feel out of touch. I haven't seen any of those movies. Not one.

[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.

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.

[OrphanPip]

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.

[DanielBenoit]

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.

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.

[Dustin]

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.

[Mathor]

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.

[Dustin]

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.

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.

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.

[Mathor]

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.

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"

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.