Hurt Locker got best picture are you kidding?

[KungFooMasta]

Was anybody else surprised to see the Hurt Locker get the award for best picture instead of Avatar? Obviously I've seen both films, and while Hurt Locker has some good qualities, I can't see it beating Avatar. Honestly the Hurt Locker doesn't have a storyline, the screenplay wasn't anything new, and there wasn't any real character development. Yet somehow it managed to get a lot of nominations/awards.

What do others think about these two movies?

[BTolputt]

I've not seen Hurt Locker so I cannot talk about whether or not it deserves it. I can, however, mention a few things about the Oscars and why Avatar did not deserve it.

Firstly, the Oscars are more about raising Hollywood "buzz" than they are about awarding the best performances / films of the year. They court controversy in the lead up to the event (to get news-paper space & TV time dedicated to talking about them) and try choosing a "publicly palatable" winner for best film every year (so as not to annoy too many folks paying to see their product - movies). Then there is the money studios spend lobbying the people deciding the awards, resulting in some interesting "corporate cold war" situations (Google is your friend if you are interested). The Oscar will not go to a bad film, but it will go to a "merely good" film if the politics, studio lobbying, and publicity opportunities are right.

Secondly, Avatar didn't deserve best film - no way, no how. It won "Best Cinematography", something I can get completely behind as that was amazing. However, for best film, you need more than that - you need stellar (preferably moving) acting performances, a great storyline, and better than fair directing. Avatar has been, quite rightly, compared to a cross between "Fern Gully" and "Dances with Wolves" - an entertaining, yet bland storyline that leaves no possible surprises and needs next to no brain cells to understand. The acting was OK, in that it didn't kill the film, but I doubt anyone was terribly moved by Jake Sully beyond the expected "go you chiselled jaw hero". And finally, there were plot-holes one could drive a tractor through.

On the plot-holes, I refer to a concept I heard a journalist refer to as the "Kryptonite Sandwich". That is, no-one complains that Superman can fly, bounce bullets off his chest, or shoot lasers from his eyes. Neither does anyone blink about the fact he is weakened by a rock (kryptonite) that no-one else is affected by in the slightest. These are the "rules" for suspending disbelief in a Superman film that people don't need to understand just to know they are there. Like non-aerodynamic dragons, people are willing to suspend logic to allow "magical elements" to be present in their films. On the other hand, should Superman eat a kryptonite sandwich and then punch his way through a brick wall, people will complain because the rules are being applied inconsistently. That is, you are trying to feed the audience a "kryptonite sandwich" (I'm sure you can work out the euphemism).

When James Cameron was asked about a few plot holes in an interview, he started making up justifications before attacking the interviewer with (I paraphrase) "There are floating mountains in the movie and you're worried about how a character is inconsistent!?". Which shows he, as the director, might be talented enough to persuade people for enough money to make Avatar but he doesn't understand the difference in people's mind between accepting Pandora is magic and feeding them a "kryptonite sandwich". Flying mountains, "dream walking" Na'vi, and even the Pandora "hive mind" can all be accepted because they are the rules set down for the film. Characters, not played by Johnny Depp, who are obviously inconsistent in their motivations & actions are not.

[haffax]

I haven't seen Hurt Locker and can't comment on this movie, but 2009 had to have been a bad year if Avatar was the best picture.
Special effects were really good, production and performance solid. But the story was an embarrassment, and no special effects could possibly have balanced the dullness and naïvety of that. A lot of school essays are more surprising, innovative, thought-provoking and fun than this.
Watching Avatar was filling out a mental checklist of all the elements that this kind of story line typically has. All boxes ticked, movie finished. Meh.

[xadhoom]

Flying mountains, "dream walking" Na'vi, and even the Pandora "hive mind" can all be accepted because they are the rules set down for the film. Characters, not played by Johnny Depp, who are obviously inconsistent in their motivations & actions are not.

Completely agree!

BTW: I always had Pocahontas in mind watching Avatar...

[Kojack]

I like the RedLetterMedia review of Avatar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

Oh, and District 9 rocks!
Even more so than District 13, but that's a very different kind of movie. (Although combining them would be awesome, parkour aliens!)

[madmarx]

Parkour alien rocks!

[jacmoe]

I haven't seen Hurt Locker and can't comment on this movie, but 2009 had to have been a bad year if Avatar was the best picture.

I second that.

[KungFooMasta]

Bah, you guys are such haters.

The movie didn't have the greatest story ever, but what was really bad with it? If 2 people come up with stories that overlap conceptually, that somehow makes the latter storyteller have a bad story? I don't see the logic there. Even if you painted the movie as a remake of a previous films, are you telling me its not possible for a remake to be good? It kind of sounds like you guys would rather watch pocahontas or dances with wolves instead, which I find hilarious.

Anyhow you guys should go watch The Hurt Locker and let me know what you think.

[BTolputt]

Well, I don't know about the others for sure, but I personally wasn't saying Avatar was a "bad movie", just that it wasn't anything above a "merely good" one. I suspect most of the others are saying the same.

"Dances with Wolves" was actually a pretty damned good movie and I honestly would still enjoy watching it. And on that subject, you cannot serisouly make the assumption that James Cameron & his script writers had never heard of the movie before. They aren't fresh off boat from Russia, they are well-known and experienced members of the American movie-making industry! They have heard about it and simply were not worried about a futuristic remake. Nothing wrong with that, but a remake is a mark against a film being the "best of the year" unless the competition really blows.

Second mark against the film is that the acting was sub-par. It didn't suck, but Sigourney Weaver was nowhere near her "Alien" best and Giovanni Ribisi's character was very 2D cutout, as was the villian played by Stephen Lang. The guy who played Jake Sully was so lack-lustre I cannot even be bothered finding out who he was (the rest I know from other films).

Finally, James Cameron's publicly declared intentions aside, the movie was obviously a relatively family-friendly action flick. The motives of everyone involved were wading pool shallow, there was alot of pretty action sequences & explosions, and the "good guys" win with only the expected sacrifices of Sigourney Weaver & the chieftain to show for it. Hell, the very first thing I thought of when they were shipping the corporation off the planet was "orbital bombardment". That and James Cameron clearly thinks that having flying mountains means he can @#$% over all concept of character motivation & continuity (a very common element of action flicks).

Was the movie pretty? It was damned gorgeous! Was the movie entertaining? Yes, though not much (if any) more so than watching one of the "Die Hard" flicks. Was it the best film of the year? Nope. Even "Up" beat it for emotional appeal and directing in my opinion, and I HATE Disneyfied stories.

[johnhpus]

I haven't seen Avatar, but I watched Hurt Locker last night.

I thought it was a very good movie. I've read many complaints about it, and to be frank, I think it's too subtle for many people who are more into explosive sci-fi crap like Transformers and 2012 than they are slower more thoughtful films. Still... best movie of 2009 would be quite a stretch. I can't think of any other decent movies from 2009 off the top of my head, but I'd be pretty surprised if Hurt Locker is actually the best that the year had to offer.

[xavier]

Oh, and District 9 rocks!

+3

[Klaim]

Oh, and District 9 rocks!

+3

++

A good surprise for me. A kind of bukake of geekness. If you see what i mean.

[stoneCold]

Oh, and District 9 rocks!

+3

++

>> 2

For me, District 9 is closer to the best picture than The Hurt Locker (just watched it yesterday) could ever be, but after all I'm not american and I certainly do like sci-fi movies that are well done.
Imo, The Hurt Locker outplaying Avatar in terms of won oscars, just showed how the political machinery behind the scenes does influence the final decision of many voters.
Also, did you know that Nicholas Cartier (one of the producers of The Hurt Locker) has sent e-mails to elective academy members, saying that they should vote against Avatar as best picture, and choose The Hurt Locker instead ?!
Anyway, as for many others, my best picture of the year was clearly Avatar and the box office numbers speak for themselves. The Hurt Locker is a good movie and I don't deny that, but if you're talking about Avatar's story being too simple, you should first watch The Hurt Locker and then draw conclusions, because imo it's not much better in this aspect.

My 2 cents

[johnhpus]

Hah, well I don't *think* that Americans are somehow able to enjoy the movie more. I'm also not sure what politics, if you mean national politics, could figure into it. It was hardly a piece of glorious propaganda.

Also, box office figures don't, as far as I know, figure into who gets an award. It certainly doesn't figure entirely on whether a movie was truly good. It indicates how good, how well marketed, and how well it appeals to the lower common denominator. Just have a look at the list of top grossing movies. There are plenty of terrible movies in that list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hi ... sing_films

[stoneCold]

I'm also not sure what politics, if you mean national politics, could figure into it.

I was trying to refer to the influence that studios have on the whole oscar nomination/voting process, BTolputt pointed it out quite nicely above (sry if my wording was misleading, I didn't mean "politics" as in "national politics")

Also, box office figures don't, as far as I know, figure into who gets an award. It certainly doesn't figure entirely on whether a movie was truly good. It indicates how good, how well marketed, and how well it appeals to the lower common denominator.

I agree with you on the first part, that's exactly what I was trying to make a point about. I can't however agree that good marketing, PR, etc. alone guarantee high box office numbers, if it were like that, I'd take out my mobile phone 5 megapixel camera right now and start filming xD

To summarize it all I can just rephrase a quote from haffax:

..., but 2009 had to have been a bad year if The Hurt Locker was the best picture.

[edit]:

I like the RedLetterMedia review of Avatar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

... just watched and laughed, really a good one

[koirat]

You can't compare this two movies.
But in my opinion "Avatar" was better in it's category than "Hurt Locker".
As I appreciate war drama movies, compared to some classics of this type of movies HL was kind of crap.


Hurt Locker
And yes it was political "join us Army Strong" we are the cool guys (like always).
They just forgot to add "I'm disciplined" to the movie.

[edit]
Also watched the review. It's great
[/edit]

[jacmoe]

Avatar is probably a great movie, but Cameron was given all the money he could ask for, and then some.
His ex-wife did HL on a very tight budget.
I don't really like the attitude of James Cameron, and all that Avatar hype is getting on my nerves.
There's real people in HL, not in Avatar.

Maybe a third movie should have won?

[koirat]

I did not know Oscars are won from quality/budget ratio.

I haven't seen Hurt Locker and can't comment on this movie, but 2009 had to have been a bad year if Avatar was the best picture.

I second that.

Just don't take avatar story seriously (it was nothing, plane and boring). But as haffax sentence imposes it's all about picture .

[reptor]

As far as I am concerned the best movies were made in the 1970's.

Now, I don't go watch new movies often, but when I do, they don't impress me much. It's like the same stuff over and over again, just wrapped a little differently.

Now, that probably means mostly "big" movies coming from Hollywood... I do find some new movies interesting but they are usually not made in America and the language is usually not English.

[KungFooMasta]

Whats the 1970s equivalent to Matrix, 300, and Lord of the Rings?

[wacom]

Whats the 1970s equivalent to Matrix, 300, and Lord of the Rings?

The question would make sense if those were really good movies.

[KungFooMasta]

I find it meaningful when people criticize without giving any reasoning or alternatives.

[haffax]

I find it meaningful when people criticize without giving any reasoning or alternatives.

You named three movies you considered good, here are three better movies from the 70ies. From the top of my head: Alien, The Godfather, Taxi Driver.
Better contemporary movies: "American Beauty", "Spirited Away", "Let the right one in", more likely because it has been named already: "District 9".

What the last four movies have in common is that they don't feel like defining a clear line between "good" and "evil", which is such a lazy concept and which to me ruins many movies.

The "hero" in District 9 is more or less an asshole. Loves his family but is opportunistic in everything else. I also am not overly sympathetic towards Eli (and Oskar) in "Let the right one in" either, but certainly a lot to think about the ethics of a vampire life and how circles close in their endless life over whole human generations. Only "Spirited Away" is more straight-forward but it gives me goose-bumps even still when watching the DVD for the umpteen's time.

(I really like Matrix, btw. Too bad they never made any sequels.)

[BTolputt]

Yeah, have to agree with wacom about the quality of those movies. Sure they were visually awesome, but they weren't great movies, just fair-to-good movies with great special effects. What part of The Matrix was a surprise? Where was the character development of 300? Even those who (luckily) hadn't read Lord of the Rings would have been able to see through the "no man born of woman" line.

To be frank, great movies are not money winners. what makes money now, as it always has, is appealing to the lowest common denominator. This means fancy eye-candy, predictable characters & plot (hero=good, villain=bad, hero wins), and nothing that challenges the preconceptions of the audience. This is the formula for success, and even Spielberg & other "great directors" churn out movies to this formula to keep the money coming in.

The Matrix, 300, Lord of the Rings, Avatar, etc - they are just the modern equivalents to Back to the Future, Batman, & Indiana Jones. Fun, entertaining, visually appealing, and in some cases - a welcome change in style... but not award winning material. Where is the power of "Citizen Kane"? Where is the thought provocation of "Blade Runner" or "2001: A Space Odyssey"?These were not record-breaking films at the box office, but are widely regarded as great movies due to the fact they combined powerful plot/themes with great cinematography (for the time). The movies you showed had great cinematography but powerful plots that provoked thought? No, they were very shallow there

[KungFooMasta]

I loved watching District 9 on the big screen. I felt sorry for the movie since other great sci fi movies came out the same year. (Avatar/Star Trek)

I have to admit I wasn't alive in the 70s, so I cannot compare. Its quite possible that all the movies of today have already been done in the 70s, but I'd like to believe there are some unique films that still come out in recent times.

BTolputt, I agree with you in the sense that the movies I listed were not the most thought provoking movies, just ones that stood out to me, apparently I'm more action oriented than others in this thread. However I've seen movies that critics love and hated them, for example "No Country for Old Men", "There will be Blood", or "Sideways". In the case of "There will be blood", I think taking the book and making it into a movie was a bad move. Its really a complex story that should be disected and analyzed in a literature class. It is hard to have a movie that takes you on an adventure, has character development, connects with the audience, and is thought provoking. Some movies that come to mind are "Up!", "Up in the Air", "Shutter Island".

Also speaking of critics, I often find that critics do not enjoy films unless they are overly complicated or have no clear goals, or if they provide some kind of life changing perspective that is new to them. If you don't understand it, it must be good. Thats why I tend to take critic reviews with a grain of salt.

Also on a side note, I recently watched the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. I thought it was pretty enjoyable and thought provoking, check it out!