2009 Oscar Nominations

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

- says everyone, every year.

utterly wrong. this year is beyond pathetic.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

worst crop of oscar nominated movies i've ever seen.

I loved three of the movies (Basterds, Hurt Locker, Up), thought one was an amazing experience (Avatar), and fully expect to at least genuinely like another (Up in the Air).Feels like a good year to me.Edit: And I forgot about A Serious Man. I'd say there's a good chance I like that one too.2nd Edit: And LG's review of An Education makes that one promising.3rd Edit: I liked District 9 too, although I wouldn't call it a "Best Film" type.4th Edit: I guess that only leaves The Blind Side, which will probably fall in the District 9 category for me, and Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire, which I have no opinion of.5th Edit: One for the thumb.

[Balloon guy 158]

This ought to be an exciting year at the Academy Awards show!

[frautotenkinder 1,025]

utterly wrong. this year is beyond pathetic.

I think this is a strong year for genre type films:Hangover (comedy)District 9, Moon, Star Trek (sci-fi)Paranormal Activity (horror)Precious (small drama)Hurt Locker (war/action)Up, Coraline (animated)This Is It (concert film)

[frautotenkinder 1,025]

Dude. (and by dude, I mean pretty lady.) He wrote the Braveheart score. Enough said. Free pass for eternity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_HornerEdit: He also wrote Glory. Double free pass.

Yes, yes, 15 years ago he wrote some good music.

[LadyGrey 6]

Well I just finished The Hurt Locker. I wouldn't say I "loved" it. I thought it was very good, with strong acting, lots of tension, and I thought the editing was excellent. I give it a 4/5 (I rarely give a 5/5 but I do 4.5s fairly often). I liked

the stuff with the young guy and the doctor. There were some great cameos (why can't we see Guy Pearce for a whole movie though? I miss him).

What's holding me back from giving it a rave review?

I appreciated the way it showed the different characters mindsets and felt that was well done, but some of the plot seemed over the top in my opinion. It just isn't plausible that a 3-man bomb disposal unit would be out on it's own, dealing with huge bombs without any or much back-up. The scene where James goes to find Beckham's house pushed it a bit too far with me, also. I almost expected him to start ranting about fluoridation. So that is what brought it down a bit for me. I felt it would have had more impact without that scene, and if the situations were more realistic in terms of there being more units present.

So, having said all that, remember, 4/5 is a high mark from me - it's what I gave A Serious Man and An Education. But I gave Inglourious 5/5.I expect the realistic chances for Best Picture are Avatar to win, Hurt Locker 2nd most likely, then Inglourious. However, for now my own personal favourite is still Inglourious.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I think this is a strong year for genre type films:Hangover (comedy)District 9, Moon, Star Trek (sci-fi)Paranormal Activity (horror)Precious (small drama)Hurt Locker (war/action)Up, Coraline (animated)This Is It (concert film)

Genre-type films? As opposed to... films that defy classification?

Well I just finished The Hurt Locker. I wouldn't say I "loved" it. I thought it was very good, with strong acting, lots of tension, and I thought the editing was excellent. I give it a 4/5 (I rarely give a 5/5 but I do 4.5s fairly often). What's holding me back from giving it a rave review? some of the plot seemed over the top in my opinion. It just isn't plausible I gave Inglourious 5/5.

This seems incongruous. I understand the basic concept, I think -- the movies were definitely trying to do different things, so should be held to a slightly different standard -- and I also agree that Basterds is probably a better film. But I would find it hard to criticize Hurt for a perceived lack of realism while giving Tarantino a total pass. For me, as long as the film is internally realistic, I'm fine. As long as the characters behave how they should, and there aren't any elements of retarded Deus Ex Machina or anything, it's cool. That's not completely, 100% true, because sometimes a film depends on an absolute, honest depiction of the reality we live in to be affective (edit: this is not a spelling error), but I don't think this applies to Hurt.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I just looked at some of the Oscar Odds at Pinny. Waltz is 90%+ to win Best Supporting Actor.Sandra Bullock is better than 50/50 against the field to win Best ActressMo'Nique is almost 90% to win Best Supporting Actress.Avatar is better than 50/50 to win Best Picture, with Hurt Locker in second at around 40%.

[Don Giovanni 0]

what a weak year for movies. the hurt locker wouldnt have even been nominated in 2007.

[Iphonenkinder 558]

When I say genre films, I think I mean movies that aren't usual Oscar bait. There were a couple of big Hollywood filim types--Lovely Bones, Time Travelers Wife, etc. That were d.o.a.I don't think 500 Days of Summer is best movie ever, but I do think it's a solid romantical type movie.

[speedz99 145]

I hope Sandra Bullock wins best actress.She did a good job in Blind Side.

The odds were 99% that you would say this.

I would never bet against Meryl Streep in any situation.

She's winning this year. Book it. Partially because of what BigD said...it's been a long time since she's won, and the academy doesn't usually let people go more than a dozen nominations without a trophy.

utterly wrong. this year is beyond pathetic.

YOU'RE UTTERLY WRONG!But seriously, you're utterly wrong.

what a weak year for movies. the hurt locker wouldnt have even been nominated in 2007.

First of all, yeah, if you pick an extraordinary year you can find a picture that wouldn't have been nominated that year. But, you're wrong, it would have been nominated over Juno, and would have been 50/50 for nomination over Michael Clayton and/or Atonement.

[SBriand 4]

Just finished Hurt. Loved it. There was backup in each scene for the three guys. 4 down, 6 to go. Avatar on Friday.

[brvheart 1,752]

Just finished Hurt. Loved it. There was backup in each scene for the three guys. 4 down, 6 to go. Avatar on Friday.

Leave early.

[brvheart 1,752]

Worst Oscar Nominations of the Last 20 Years

As you no doubt know, the 2010 Academy Award nominations were announced this morning, and it’s hard to argue there were any real surprises, save for the pleasant one of In the Loop for best original script (in fact, I used my Golden Globes post as a template while I was transcribing the Oscar noms this morning, and barely changed anything). Even among those nominations we vehemently disagree with (Avatar, Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side), I don’t think there was much of a surprise — if Bullock was going to get the obvious Oscar nomination, and they had to fill out ten spots, The Blind Side is just the sort of populist pabulum for which the Academy expanded the Best Picture category to ten.That doesn’t make those particular nominations any less egregious, though. In fact, over the last 20 years, the Academy has made quite a few boneheaded nominations. Some of them might have felt right for that particular year, but just haven’t held up over time, while others were likely the Academy’s way of creating a compelling storyline leading up to the ceremony.If the Academy gets to decide what the best movies and performances are, I think it’s only fair that someone hold the Academy accountable for their stupidity over the years. As such, I’ve looked at all the major categories over the last 20 years, and came up with the 20 Most Boneheaded Nominations during that time span. Those that are bolded actually won.20. Best Picture: Ghost (1990)19. Best Actor: Will Smith (The Pursuit of Happyness)18. Best Picture: Shakespeare in Love (1998)17. Best Picture: Bugsy (1991)16. Best Director: M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense)15. Best Actress: Julia Roberts (Pretty Woman)14. Best Actress: Jennifer Hudson (Dreamgirls)13. Best Director: Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump)12. Best Adapted Screenplay: Sacha Baron Cohen, Borat11. Best Adapted Screenplay: Elaine May, Primary Colors10. Best Picture: Ray (2004)9. Best Picture: The Prince of Tides (1991)8. Best Original Screenplay: Nia Vardolos, My Big Fat Greek Wedding7. Best Original Screenplay: Peter Weir, Green Card6. Best Supporting Actor: Matt Dillon (Crash)5. Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)4. Best Director: Paul Haggis (Crash)3 Best Supporting Actress: Renee Zellwegger (Cold Mountain)2. Best Actress: Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side1. Best Picture: Crash (2005)I'd like to discuss this.I agree with him on almost everything, but not the following numbers: 19, 16.The worst travesty in Oscar history is that Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan. There is no excuse for this.Number 5 and 3 are hilariously true. Both terrible terrible movies, and Renee was laugh out loud terrible in Cold Mountain.I think it's really interesting that Matt Damon suggested that we wait 10 years to give out the Oscars. So this year we would be giving out the Oscars for 2000. That is a good idea. It's too bad it's not possible.

[king_tanner 84]

I agree with him on almost everything, but not the following numbers: 19, 16.

#13 #10 and #8 I completely disagree with. Yep I'm a guy and I loved My Big Fat Greek Wedding.The only one I completely agree with is Matt Dillon. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary in his performance. If I had to pick one person to be nominated in that movie it would have been Terrance Howard.

[LadyGrey 6]

Just finished Hurt. Loved it. There was backup in each scene for the three guys.

Oh shut up, you're just being a contrarian. I don't recall my exact wording in my post, but even when there was an appearance of some other soldiers presence, in many scenes they weren't active back-up in the sense that I mean.

There's usually a group of soldiers hanging back or moving people away from the area, but the bomb unit are the only ones watching with their guns and covering each other. That doesn't seem sufficient to me.

For example, take the very first scene in the movie.

There is a brief cutaway to soldiers clearing a street, but we have no idea where they are compared to the bomb unit, as all other angles including overhead shots show just the 3 of them and their humvee. Where's the security? Why are two of the bomb disposal specialists the only people watching the passers by for triggermen? That clearly isn't sufficient and it's not their job to "run and gun" in a controlled situation like that.

Now, regarding Wang's comment, no it isn't always necessary for a film to be completely accurate. But Hurt Locker is supposed to be realistic, as opposed to Inglourious which is incomparable as a 'war' movie - it clearly doesn't purport to a shred of accuracy, in fact, that's the whole point. I'm not a nitpicker who is saying "that gun doesn't have a scope like it should" etc, and the accuracy of the back-up situation isn't a reason why I didn't give it a higher rating. It just contributed in a small way toward my perception that there was over-dramatisation where there didn't need to be. Would it have detracted from the plot/characters if there had been another unit providing security, allowing the bomb disposal unit to concentrate on their job? I don't think so. But they made the choice to make it more dramatic, and that is what I am criticising. That's all MY OPINION so please don't be lame and make passive-aggressive comments about how "There was backup in each scene for the three guys". It really doesn't contribute to the discussion, and my opinion isn't up for debate, it's my opinion.

[Don Giovanni 0]

First of all, yeah, if you pick an extraordinary year you can find a picture that wouldn't have been nominated that year. But, you're wrong, it would have been nominated over Juno, and would have been 50/50 for nomination over Michael Clayton and/or Atonement.

well i didn't find "a" picture, i found the best one from this year. and i forgot about juno, **** that movie. but hurt locker isn't better than clayton or atonement, not by a long shot. though i guess there's no guarantee the academy would get that right.

[Don Giovanni 0]

has this forum always censored shit?

[LadyGrey 6]

has this forum always censored shit?

No, not shit, just fuck.Just watched Up. Very cute movie, made me cry a bit. Whoever said it's too scary for kids is a pussy. It was no worse than the wolves in Beauty and the Beast or Scar's pride in the Lion King. Not Best Picture material, but a great Pixar movie. The music was excellent, best soundtrack I've heard for 2009 so far.EDIT: Also I'm so glad they didn't ruin this Up film with celebrity voiceovers. I honestly don't need Tom Hanks to be the voice of every middle-to-old aged man in animated films, or Jim Carrey to voice all the zany characters, or Drew Barrymore to be all the women. I don't want to be distracted by the familiarity of a voice when I am watching animations.

[brvheart 1,752]

No, not shit, just fuck.Just watched Up. Very cute movie, made me cry a bit. Whoever said it's too scary for kids is a pussy. It was no worse than the wolves in Beauty and the Beast or Scar's pride in the Lion King. Not Best Picture material, but a great Pixar movie. The music was excellent, best soundtrack I've heard for 2009 so far.

I don't think anyone said this.

[Suited_Up 2]

I don't think anyone said this.

Depressing maybe, but haven't heard scary.Also 100% agree with Shakespeare In Love comment.

[Piddle Duck 0]

Oh shut up, you're just being a contrarian. I don't recall my exact wording in my post, but even when there was an appearance of some other soldiers presence, in many scenes they weren't active back-up in the sense that I mean.

There's usually a group of soldiers hanging back or moving people away from the area, but the bomb unit are the only ones watching with their guns and covering each other. That doesn't seem sufficient to me.

For example, take the very first scene in the movie.

There is a brief cutaway to soldiers clearing a street, but we have no idea where they are compared to the bomb unit, as all other angles including overhead shots show just the 3 of them and their humvee. Where's the security? Why are two of the bomb disposal specialists the only people watching the passers by for triggermen? That clearly isn't sufficient and it's not their job to "run and gun" in a controlled situation like that.

Now, regarding Wang's comment, no it isn't always necessary for a film to be completely accurate. But Hurt Locker is supposed to be realistic, as opposed to Inglourious which is incomparable as a 'war' movie - it clearly doesn't purport to a shred of accuracy, in fact, that's the whole point. I'm not a nitpicker who is saying "that gun doesn't have a scope like it should" etc, and the accuracy of the back-up situation isn't a reason why I didn't give it a higher rating. It just contributed in a small way toward my perception that there was over-dramatization where there didn't need to be. Would it have detracted from the plot/characters if there had been another unit providing security, allowing the bomb disposal unit to concentrate on their job? I don't think so. But they made the choice to make it more dramatic, and that is what I am criticizing. That's all MY OPINION so please don't be lame and make passive-aggressive comments about how "There was backup in each scene for the three guys". It really doesn't contribute to the discussion, and my opinion isn't up for debate, it's my opinion.

You are so sensitive when people don't agree with you. Well my opinion is this, I don't need to see back up to know there is back up. It doesn't over dramatize the situation because defusing bombs is a pretty dramatic thing to begin with. Seeing the back up is not going to lessen or intensify that for me personally. In each scene it was clearly shown that there were other troops around but the movie is about those three men, not the other troops. At the UN the other troops showed up minutes after the bomb was defused. They were there, you just didn't need to see what they were going through as the scene was not about them. Generally when defusing bombs you have as few people in the area as possible so you limit casualties in case the bomb detonates. They don't put 20 soldiers in the area of that bomb. Bomb squads are usually 3-5 men, everyone else takes cover. So in my opinion, there was nothing wrong with the movie not showing all the extra support. I knew it was there and I believe many viewers were also aware. But you wanted to see more of that and that is fine. You are entitled to that opinion, never said you weren't. I just disagree with it. Sorry I didn't expound on it in more detail last night but I didn't feel like doing so at the time.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I think the people who are trying to say that Up isn't a kids movie are speaking more thematically, but fuck that, there's a house flying with balloons, talking dogs, and an exotic awesome bird.

[LadyGrey 6]

I think the people who are trying to say that Up isn't a kids movie are speaking more thematically, but fuck that, there's a house flying with balloons, talking dogs, and an exotic awesome bird.

How so? I don't get what you're saying there. I just remembered someone whining that the dogs were frightening (I think it was brv).

[JoeyJoJo 18]

How so? I don't get what you're saying there. I just remembered someone whining that the dogs were frightening (I think it was brv).

Just meaning that some of the issues they deal with aren't really geared for kids. Life/death, relationships...I don't know.I thought Russell talking about his relationship with his father was especially poignant and I liked the way they showed Carl sort of taking on a father-figure role. The counting red and blue cars while having ice cream at the end or going through Ellie's picture book and realizing their life together was the real adventure; I thought these were really moving moments, but I doubt that kids would really "get" it.But I don't think that means it's not a kids movie.