2010 Academy Awards Thread

[B-side]

Uh oh. Charlize Theron said Precious without the requisite "Based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire."

There's a hitman waiting for her at the after party.

[MadMan]

I still think Avatar is gonna win Best Picture. Just cause its the Oscars, and of course they often like to fuck shit up.

Ben Stiller dressed up as a Navi was hilarious. They should just invite him back year after year, simply to see what he does each year.

[Sxottlan]

Ha! Paranormal Activity reference. Nice.

[Wryan]

Lol that slap.

[Ivan Drago]

Twilight /= Horror

[balmakboor]

I really appreciated Powell's recognizing costume designers in non-"costume epic" type films.

[Wryan]

Nice montage!

[angrycinephile]

Ben Stiller dressed up as a Navi was hilarious. They should just invite him back year after year, simply to see what he does each year.

True. Him parodying Joaquin Phoenix last year was awesome as well.

The horror tribute was really cool. Interesting how they even showed clips from such "masterpieces" like the Friday the 13th-movies and Leatherface: TCM 3.

Seeing Chucky at the Oscars = bizarre :lol:

[Sxottlan]

Stewart says no horror has been recognized since The Exorcist, yet they include Silence of the Lambs in the montage.

[balmakboor]

Edward Scissorhands isn't horror.

[Wryan]

On the whole tonight, they are being surprisingly frank about what the Academy has ignored or currently does ignore with regards to acceptability.

[Wryan]

Edward Scissorhands isn't horror.

Neither is Aliens, but we can split hairs about this all night.

[Sxottlan]

On the whole, they are being surprisingly frank about what the Academy has ignored or currently does ignore with regards to acceptability.

Yeah, that sound set up felt like another, "We screwed up with The Dark Knight."

[Sxottlan]

Wow. Hurt Locker putting the hurt on Avatar.

[Wryan]

The hottest dance troupe on TV? Oh god please no...

[megladon8]

"Oh, I already have two of these. So, who will I dedicate this one too?"

[MadMan]

True. Him parodying Joaquin Phoenix last year was awesome as well.

The horror tribute was really cool. Interesting how they even showed clips from such "masterpieces" like the Friday the 13th-movies and Leatherface: TCM 3.

Seeing Chucky at the Oscars = bizarre :lol:Yeah him as Phoneix was classic.

The Horror Tribute, a few moments aside (Twilight=WTF, among other things) was awesome. I loved it.

[Raiders]

"Oh, I already have two of these. So, who will I dedicate this one too?"

That coupled with her quasi-slap-in-the-face to stuffy period pieces (for which she won) made that the speech of the night so far.

[Sxottlan]

They going to do visual effects? They teased that awhile back.

EDIT: Are they trying to make up time? They just flew through the cinematography category.

[Wryan]

If any award deserved a VISUAL montage, you'd think it would be cinematography.

Surprised that Avatar got this.

[Raiders]

Surprised by Avatar's win there. Figured the fact that 80% of it being on a computer and not a camera would make a difference.

[Rowland]

Way to disrespect those behind the cameras by not even showing clips of their work.

[MadMan]

Since when is CGI considered cinematography? Hurt Locker should have won for that.

[Raiders]

Since when is CGI considered cinematography?

Why not?

[angrycinephile]

Anthony Dod Mantle (for Antichrist) should have won. Oh wait.

[balmakboor]

If any award deserved a VISUAL montage, you'd think it would be cinematography.

My thought as well.

[Ivan Drago]

Surprised by Avatar's win there. Figured the fact that 80% of it being on a computer and not a camera would make a difference.

EXACTLY!

[BuffaloWilder]

Since when is CGI considered cinematography? Hurt Locker should have won for that.

Well, the principles are all basically the same, as I've said before. There's no reason they shouldn't be open for consideration, as well.

My problem is, like most of James Cameron's films, Avatar isn't at all creative or even expressive with its cinematography - usually, it's pretty mundane stuff, like a pan here and a pan there. Repeat, etc.

[Sxottlan]

Way to disrespect those behind the cameras by not even showing clips of their work.

Agreed. I swear they're going into bare bones mode or something.

The earlier technicals were showing more and now suddenly they're just reading off names.

[MadMan]

Well, the principles are all basically the same, as I've said before. There's no reason they shouldn't be open for consideration, as well.

My problem is, like most of James Cameron's films, Avatar isn't at all creative or even expressive with its cinematography - usually, it's pretty mundane stuff, like a pan here and a pan there. Repeat, etc.Exactly. The other nominees had much better cinematography. Oh well.


Why not?You just made a comment that supports my opinion (80% of the movie is CGI). Thanks.

[Sxottlan]

I can see how wavy arms is interpretative for an IED. :crazy:

[Wryan]

Oh shit! The Academy gettin all hip on us.

...

Actually, that was better than I was prepared to give it credit for. I wouldn't mind that every year.

[MadMan]

Fuck this. No point in having dancers onstage at all. Up should win this category btw.

[Sxottlan]

Up should win this category btw.

You are some kind of sorcerer. :D

[angrycinephile]

They should have just let the orchestra play a medley of all the nominated scores... without the dancing.

Yes, Giacchino deserved to win. Nice speech too.

Shame they butchered his last name again though. It's juh-kee-no.

[B-side]

Anthony Dod Mantle (for Antichrist) should have won. Oh wait.

Yup.

[MadMan]

You are some kind of sorcerer. :DUh, not really. I've gotten a lot of ones wrong. I'm not even keeping track anymore.

I actually think it would have been awesome had The Hangover been nominated for anything. Everything.

[Qrazy]

Is there anyway to stream the Oscars online?

[Sxottlan]

Fisher Stevens just won an Oscar?

[Wryan]

So when people vote for awards for which they have nooooo-ho-ho-ho idea of the technical aspect of said award....do they just vote for the film they liked best?

[MadMan]

Pedro and QT giving away Foreign Films award=great. Loved the cut away to Steve and Alec wearing snugglies.

[Rowland]

So far, moment of the night for me was Sam Jackson rolling his eyes after Monique's speech. Only cutting to black celebrities after one wins bite you in the behind, eh Academy?

[angrycinephile]

So far, moment of the night for me was Sam Jackson rolling his eyes after Monique's speech. Only cutting to black celebrities after one wins bite you in the behind, eh Academy?

Someone should make a GIF out of that. One wonders if he rolled his eyes at the speech or the fact that they cut to him afterwards. Probably the latter.

[angrycinephile]

Pedro and QT giving away Foreign Films award=great.

That was fun. It's shame Quentin won't be winning anything tonight. I would love to hear his thank you speech.

[Sxottlan]

Oh crap. Here they go again.

[Qrazy]

Here (http://mymovees.com/oscars/watch-oscars-online/).

Thanks man.

[Wryan]

Good lord. This is a lot of waffle for the men.

[MadMan]

So far, moment of the night for me was Sam Jackson rolling his eyes after Monique's speech. Only cutting to black celebrities after one wins bite you in the behind, eh Academy?Really? Goddamnit, I can't believe I missed that.

And yeah I would have loved to see QT's speech for winning Best Director as well.

[Wryan]

Whoa Jeff....

[MadMan]

Jeff Bridges should have won for The Dude. But this is great, regardless.

[angrycinephile]

Jeff Bridges should have won for The Dude. But this is great, regardless.

Crazy Heart is a flawed film and he's done better performances in better movies. However, he's still Jeff fucking Bridges and he deserves an Oscar. I'm glad he won.

[MadMan]

Crazy Heart is a flawed film and he's done better performances in better movies. However, he's still Jeff fucking Bridges and he deserves an Oscar. I'm glad he won.I agree with this post 100%. That's how the Oscars work, sadly.

[Wryan]

Oy.

[angrycinephile]

Not a bad speech though.

[Wryan]

Oh yeah great speech.

Yay for Bigelow.

[angrycinephile]

Well, that was... fast.

[MadMan]

Thank God Hurt Locker won, even though it wasn't the best movie of the year. Plus Bigelow deserved to win Best Director.

[megladon8]

James Cameron is gonna hang himself tonight.

Mark my words.

[Raiders]

You just made a comment that supports my opinion (80% of the movie is CGI). Thanks.

I was surprised the Academy picked it, not giving my own opinion. So you're not welcome.

[Sxottlan]

Nearly looked away, thinking he was still going to go through the whole list of films again.

[Dead & Messed Up]

James Cameron is gonna hang himself tonight.

Mark my words.

More likely: he'll go into damage control tomorrow, which will be remarkably easy, since Avatar is the most successful movie of all time. I would've loved to have seen an Inglourious Basterds win, but what can you do?

...whoa. They're playing the theme from E. T. Remember when that film lost to Gandhi? I don't. I wasn't even born yet.

[MadMan]

I was surprised the Academy picked it, not giving my own opinion. So you're not welcome.Meh, whatever. The Academy is often wrong.

Good show overall tonight. Much better than last year's. By far.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Nice! I win $5.

[angrycinephile]

Thank God Hurt Locker won, even though it wasn't the best movie of the year. Plus Bigelow deserved to win Best Director.

Indeed. Not my favorite of the year. Hell, it's not even my favorite of those 10 but rather that than Avatar or Precious. It's a more satisfying winner than Slumdog Millionaire was last year too.

Overall, a decent enough ceremony. Baldwin and Martin did a perfectly fine job methinks. They should get Conan for next year though.

[balmakboor]

...whoa. They're playing the theme from E. T. Remember when that film lost to Gandhi? I don't. I wasn't even born yet.

I remember it. It was the worst Oscar night of my life. I was 20 at the time.

[balmakboor]

I was so hoping that the changes in the best pic category were going to backfire and leave us with some weird surprise winner. Hearing The Hurt Locker was pretty damn anticlimactic. Good film though.

[[ETM]]

Was I watching a different show? Martin and Baldwin were terrible, with only a couple of bright spots.

[MadMan]

Indeed. Not my favorite of the year. Hell, it's not even my favorite of those 10 but rather that than Avatar or Precious. It's a more satisfying winner than Slumdog Millionaire was last year too.Oh yeah, Slumdog Millionaire was merely good, while The Hurt Locker was great. Avatar not winning rules, simply because it shouldn't have even been nominated.


Overall, a decent enough ceremony. Baldwin and Martin did a perfectly fine job methinks. They should get Conan for next year though.Conan is too out there for the Oscars. Too edgy and hip. NPH would be a fantastic choice-maybe they should pair the two.

[MadMan]

;246555']Was I watching a different show? Martin and Baldwin were terrible, with only a couple of bright spots.Really? They were funny together. Alone, they wouldn't have been as humorous-it was a good idea.

[megladon8]

Martin and Baldwin were the best hosts in a while. Really enjoyed them. Glad they chose to keep some rather touchy humor in, too.

Loved Martin's comment about Meryl Streep. "She holds the record for most nominations. Or as I like to think...most losses."


And with Jeff Bridges winning Best Actor and Up! winning Best Score, I was happy.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm very very happy with the outcome.

- Seeing Bigelow up there and realizing she made the manliest movie of the past five years just feels so inexplicably arousing. So cool! So awesome! And she's 58?! Blimey!

- Gag reflexes aplenty during some of the best actor and actresses announcements, but Tim Robbins saluting Freeman was downright fantastic.

- Fisher Stevens won an Oscar? Cool for him, but that came out of nowhere.

- Baldwin and Martin were fine, but is it just me or has the role of the host been severely curtailed in recent years? No biggie though. I found most of it quite amusing.

[Watashi]

Downey Jr. should host the Oscars next. Why hasn't anyone thought of this?

Sandra winning aside, it was an okay show. I also loved the Robbins roasting of Freeman. That's how it should be done and not waxing their balls on a godly pedestal.

Had a fun time watching it with Barty and Chrisnu. We should have a Match Cut get-together for next year's Oscars.

[MadMan]

RDJ would make an excellent host. And Morris I agree that they really have cut back on the amount of screen time given to the hosts, but that does result in a much shorter awards show.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Also, I feel amazed that I have to point this out, but the Academy devotes five minutes of this year's telecast to a cheesy horror montage...

...and doesn't include Bigelow's great vampire flick Near Dark?

:crazy:

[number8]

I think if I wasn't at a bar having a blast with the other patrons, I would've born bored shitless tonight with this Oscar.

[Malickfan]

Did anyone else notice how awkward the best short documentary acceptance speech was? I think that guy thought the whole stage was his and then that old lady took the mike from him. He did not look happy.

I also think they had an error in the best cinematography category which is why it went by so fast without a visual of the dp and them doing his or her work.

Fucking Sandra Bullock.

[hey it's ethan]

To cap off tonight's event, I will now go listen to Tangerine Dream's Near Dark score.

[Sxottlan]

I also think they had an error in the best cinematography category which is why it went by so fast without a visual of the dp and them doing his or her work.

I'm hoping that there was some malfunction, because I can't imagine them not showing anything for an inherently visual category.

[Malickfan]

Did anyone else notice how awkward the best short documentary acceptance speech was? I think that guy thought the whole stage was his and then that old lady took the mike from him. He did not look happy.

I found this...

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1633363/story.jhtml

[ledfloyd]

sandra bullock's speech actually made me kinda glad she won.

[Derek]

sandra bullock's speech actually made me kinda glad she won.

Sandra Bullock's speech confirmed that she is a genuinely sweet person, but did little to convince me that she's not a shitty actress.

[Pop Trash]

Kathryn Bigelow has to be the hottest 58 year old woman in the history of 58 year old women.

[B-side]

Kathryn Bigelow has to be the hottest 58 year old woman in the history of 58 year old women.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind her on my face.

[Adam]

Sigourney Weaver looks even better and she's 60, somehow

[chrisnu]

Sigourney Weaver looks even better and she's 60, somehow
I agree.

Firth should have won, but I'm still pleased with Bridges. Waltz was the most-deserved win, in my opinion, and gave the best speech, right at the beginning.

[Ezee E]

Downey Jr. should host the Oscars next. Why hasn't anyone thought of this?

Sandra winning aside, it was an okay show. I also loved the Robbins roasting of Freeman. That's how it should be done and not waxing their balls on a godly pedestal.

Had a fun time watching it with Barty and Chrisnu. We should have a Match Cut get-together for next year's Oscars.
Downey Jr. and Stiller were originally approached to host, but then Shankman pulled the idea at the last minute for whatever reason.

[Ezee E]

Decent show though. I was mostly bored throughout. I just wish they could fit in spoofs of movies somehow, and just get the idea that dance numbers do not work, and nobody has liked them for the past 5 years. This year's edition was the laziest yet.

I like and hate the way they present the actor/actress awards. I feel the most uncomfortable for those that are being presented the nominations.

Glad for Bigelow, although I wish someone would've made a Point Break joke somewhere, anywhere during this entire awards season.

Would've enjoyed more Baldwin/Clooney staredowns.

They say Bullock has paid her dues, but I'm wondering what I missed out on. She's good looking, and a fun one to interview, but her movies are generally bad. Not so much her. I have not seen The Blind Side. Don't plan on it.

I liked that Tom Hanks just came out there and presented the award. Gave more of a true award speech instead of just having to run the end credits and ruin the moment for the biggest award of the night.

[MadMan]

The problem with the Oscars is that they're always afraid of a repeat of the 1998 awards show, which if I recall correctly lasted from 8 pm to 1 am in the morning (CST). So they cut out too many things that would make the show more entertaining in the interest of run time. Or not. That's my guess, anyways.

[Morris Schæffer]

Would've enjoyed more Baldwin/Clooney staredowns.

Haha, I loved that as well. And Clooney just looks awesome when he stares. :)

[Winston*]

2010 Oscar Winners that could also be the titles of porns:

The secret in their eyes
Logorama
The Cove
The Young Victoria
Up
The Hurt Locker

[Dukefrukem]

Snuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuubed

[balmakboor]

My favorite Oscar moment was the streaker in 1974. Yeah, I was watching back then. Truly live television ruled.

[Dukefrukem]

My favorite Oscar moment was the streaker in 1974. Yeah, I was watching back then. Truly live television ruled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fbrGcHmO_Q

[Wryan]

I'd really rather not have Ben Stiller hosting anything, particularly not the Oscars. I don't ever seem to find his stuff funny up there.

[Boner M]

I can't be the first to point out the presence of Leprechaun in an Oscar montage.

[Raiders]

As dubious as the "In Memorium" thing is anyway, seems kinda strange they omitted Farrah Fawcett.

[number8]

kUbGcRJUDu0

[balmakboor]

Somebody posted this reaction at Wired.com. I think it speaks for itself.

"wtf F*CK the oscars!! NEVER WATCHING AGAIN! The Hurt Locker is crap I think all the movie is just in one scenario It’s so boring as hell. AVATAR IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER. YO KATHERYN Imma LET YOU FINISH BUT AVATAR IS THE BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! OF ALL TIME! peace"

And I thought smart people would hang out at a site like Wired.

[Dead & Messed Up]

As dubious as the "In Memorium" thing is anyway, seems kinda strange they omitted Farrah Fawcett.

Only way I can figure it, she was so predominantly a television star. Her last movie role was in The Cookout, and her most well-known role was probably in Logan's Run.

[Wryan]

Included Michael, though.

[Sycophant]

And I thought smart people would hang out at a site like Wired.

Never assume tech geeks have anything approaching good taste.

[Eleven]

kUbGcRJUDu0

Oscar #2 assured.

[kuehnepips]

Kathryn Bigelow has to be the hottest 58 year old woman in the history of 58 year old women.

:)

And all this on the International Women's Day!

[Henry Gale]

Waltz' thing was good, but it was a shame it that to come after the Iron Man 2 trailer premiere and the Handsome Men's Club:

MyGJXLxtVEo

[Dead & Messed Up]

The horror montage from last night inspired my newest blog entry (http://horrorfilms101.blogspot.com), but I may as well just post the whole thing here.


This year, the Oscars decided to throw a bone to us horror fans. You know, since we're needy like that. I mean, I know I watch the list of nominations every year, hoping against hope that the Academy will finally recognize the cinematic value of Jigsaw and Chucky. Well, this year, they recognized my deepest desire, and, to prove they have their finger on the pulse of the horror genre, the Academy had Taylor Lautner and Kristen Stewart present the montage, which is kind of like having Hoobastank explaining the power of rock and roll.

So, anyway, the dour duo rolled the clip, and while the package was chock-full of great horror flicks (they're bound to get some right), the Academy's montage skews almost completely toward populist and contemporary fare, ignoring much of the rich history of horror and disregarding many of the horror filmmakers who have made waves with their collected works.

Yes, I understand the necessity of choosing movies that, you know, people have actually seen, but this was an opportunity to showcase the variety of horror, but instead, the Academy played to so many of the genre's boringly familiar tropes. Excessive bloodletting, scream queens clearing their lungs, "shock moments." The whole thing was more exploitative than a Jerry Bruckheimer remake.

(Sidenote: did there seem to be a disproportionate amount of Freddy Krueger in the reel? Wonder why. Really makes one nostalgic for that character. Conveniently, there's something coming out soon that could satiate that urge...)

Consider that we saw barely any of the 1940's on display, apart from The Wolf Man. No Spiral Staircase, no Uninvited, and, worst of all, none of the works of famed horror producer Val Lewton. Wrap your head around that one: one of the genre's best auteurs ever got nothing. While Psycho gets name-checked, as it always does (and haven't we seen that damn shower sequence enough?), there was little credit toward the collected works of Roger Corman, apart from a token nod to Little Shop of Horrors, mostly for its scene with Jack Nicholson. None of his classic Poe features, no X, no Bucket of Blood. And for that matter, where the hell was Vincent Price?

While the Academy teased some actors playfully by showing clips from Friday the 13th, Leprechaun, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (and let's face it, McConaughey needs the reminder), they ignored what should've been a slam-dunk: Kathryn Bigelow's creepy vampire-western classic, Near Dark. Oh, and they showed absolute ignorance to the works of Stuart Gordon, Brad Anderson, Rob Zombie, and Larry Fessenden.

(Sidenote: they showed classic German production Nosferatu, then avoided foreign horror for the rest of the montage. Put up or shut up, guys. You force me to wonder why we aren't seeing Dr. Caligari, Diaboliques, Black Sunday, Kwaidan, Black Christmas, and Peter Jackson's masterwork of subtlety, Dead/Alive.)

Look, I don't hate the Oscars (not completely), and I understand what they tried to do with this montage, but they view the genre as outsiders, and, consequently, they revered what outsiders value about the films. Namely, those tropes that strike a fan like me as wearying. Shock instead of dread. Loud noises instead of quiet. Audience hits instead of true classics. The whole thing's so damned obvious that it borders on condescension. One more example: they show a clip from the dull, incomprehensible The Amityville Horror but ignore Robert Wise's classic The Haunting. Why? Because one's more "popular" than the other.

However, there was one brief moment, tucked inside the montage, that nearly made the whole thing worth it. It was blink-and-you-miss-it.

It was Ash, running through the hallways of the Deadite-infested cabin in Evil Dead II. Which was the first horror film I ever loved. And, even if it was just for a second or two, all of the Academy viewers have now seen part of a film where a severed hand gives someone the finger. Now that would've been an appropriate clip.

[Eleven]

Yeah, seeing the camera chasing Bruce Campbell was my personal highlight of the show as well.

[Spun Lepton]

The Hurt Locker is gonna clean up.

:D

[dreamdead]

Win
Tina Fey and RDJ doing their schtick
Bigelow


Suck
John Hughes getting a 10-15 minute tribute when Bergman, Rohmer, and Antonioni all got periphery attention
Taratino getting ignored as a director/writer this time

[Raiders]

Suck
John Hughes getting a 10-15 minute tribute when Bergman, Rohmer, and Antonioni all got periphery attention

For realz. All my friends came into work the next day wondering where Max Von Sydow, Liv Ullman, Monica Vitti, Vanessa Redgrave and a bunch of unknown French actors and actresses were to give us a 10-minute tribute to those cinema classics so loved and recognized by this country.

[Derek]

I thought the most impressive moment of the night was Vera Farmiga proving that you can in fact blow someone from across the room.

[DavidSeven]

Seemed pretty blatant that the Academy threw in the horror montage as a way to shoehorn the Twilight duo into the show.

Also, I really can't stand the circle-jerk presentation of the Best Actor/Actress category. This thing seemed to drag on for embarassingly long this time around. And Mr. Whitaker, I kind of like you, but the "tangible magical quality" of Bullock's performances? Make it stop.

[Spinal]

Also, I really can't stand the circle-jerk presentation of the Best Actor/Actress category. This thing seemed to drag on for embarassingly long this time around. And Mr. Whitaker, I kind of like you, but the "tangible magical quality" of Bullock's performances? Make it stop.

I think this whole thing was an excuse to get Oprah on stage.

Just show a clip from the performance. I hate it when they overthink this one.

On another note, I was kind of shocked by how carefree they were with revealing key information in scenes from A Serious Man and Inglourious Basterds.

[Spinal]

Suck
John Hughes getting a 10-15 minute tribute when Bergman, Rohmer, and Antonioni all got periphery attention

Diagree.

Hughes is of course nowhere near the filmmaker that those others are, but that is not the point. He means more to the majority of people watching the Oscars. He is a cultural touchstone for better or for worse. He's someone who made films that everybody in your family can discuss and quote lines from.

I would suggest that if you think the Oscars would be better served showing clips from Antonioni films, then you kind of have a distorted idea of what the ceremony is.

[dreamdead]

On another note, I was kind of shocked by how carefree they were with revealing key information in scenes from A Serious Man and Inglourious Basterds.

It rather seems as though they approached the scene selection the way that trailers approach revealing the key information now. It's not altogether a horrible idea if, and only if, there are more films pulled from the early parts of a year. Having so much of The Messenger, Crazy Heart, and other spoiled late-December releases is super-annoying.

And I perfectly well know that the Oscars don't exist as a mechanism for film education to the masses, disseminating the virtues of foreign filmmakers alongside Hollywood productions. But it seems myopic to praise Hughes to that extent, especially when Bacall, Willis, and Corman didn't get their chance in the live limelight for speeches.

In brief, now I know how cine-philes felt when Out of Africa received the Oscar attention over Ran.

[Watashi]

I've never seen The Breakfast Club before, but that John Hughes tribute has made me want to check it out.

[number8]

But it seems myopic to praise Hughes to that extent, especially when Bacall, Willis, and Corman didn't get their chance in the live limelight for speeches.

Well, maybe they should've made more teen dramas and comedies, duh.

[Boner M]

I've never seen The Breakfast Club before, but that John Hughes tribute has made me want to check it out.
Wha?! It's a crappy movie, and at its worst when it gets angsty (as seen in the clip).

[Watashi]

I just realized that there was no Ricardo Montalban in the "In Memorium" montage.

http://blog.nola.com/mikescott/2009/04/large_khaaan.jpg

[Watashi]

Wha?! It's a crappy movie, and at its worst when it gets angsty (as seen in the clip).
I've liked the other angsty teen dramas that he did (Ferris and Pretty in Pink).

[number8]

Are you sure? I remember seeing him.

[Watashi]

Are you sure? I remember seeing him.
Nope. Other blogs have pointed it out as well.

[number8]

I've liked the other angsty teen dramas that he did (Ferris and Pretty in Pink).

I prefer Breakfast Club to those two.

If you want a crappy John Hughes movie, see Weird Science.

[Rowland]

I've never seen The Breakfast Club before, but that John Hughes tribute has made me want to check it out.The first half is okay, but the angst grows wearying and the ending is badly botched.

Ferris Bueller, while almost unbearably smug at points, holds up the best for me out of the Hughes movies.

[megladon8]

Regardless of the cheesy teen angst in Hughes' films, I respect their popularity and acknowledge their importance in film history.

Plus they had some kickass soundtracks.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I have no problem with the John Hughes memoriam.

But, did they even have Ingmar Bergman in the other montage?

[Watashi]

Yeah, I have no problem with the John Hughes memoriam.

But, did they even have Ingmar Bergman in the other montage?
Um, he died in 2007.

[MadMan]

I just realized that there was no Ricardo Montalban in the "In Memorium" montage.

http://blog.nola.com/mikescott/2009/04/large_khaaan.jpgWhat? Goddamnit....screw you Academy.


I think this whole thing was an excuse to get Oprah on stage.

Just show a clip from the performance. I hate it when they overthink this one.

On another note, I was kind of shocked by how carefree they were with revealing key information in scenes from A Serious Man and Inglourious Basterds.That was really pissing me off. I'm glad I saw both before the ceremony. Weak, Oscar. Weak.


kUbGcRJUDu0Get that man a comedy, stat! That was great.

Breakfast Club is a damn fine movie. I dig it a lot, but I prefer Ferris Buller's Day Off and Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.

[Watashi]

What did they spoil in A Serious Man?

[Ezee E]

Um, he died in 2007.
Someone complained about the lack of a Ingmar Bergman memorial. Meh.

[balmakboor]

I'm sure that giving so much time to John Hughes is just part of the whole making the show appeal to a wide audience thing. Everybody knows about Hughes and his movies. The vast majority of people like or love his movies. My whole family -- yes, me included -- were saying the lines along with the actors during those clips from The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Give the same amount of time to Ingmar Bergman and the vast majority of Americans would opt for a potty break.

[Pop Trash]

I would suggest that if you think the Oscars would be better served showing clips from Antonioni films, then you kind of have a distorted idea of what the ceremony is.

Speaking of which, and I don't care enough to do the interweb research right now, but I swear Antonioni got a lifetime achievement award from the Oscars sometime in the mid to late 90s. I remember watching the show with my parents and them showing the big explosion shot from Zabriskie Point and my parents telling me I should check that movie out.

[Derek]

Give the same amount of time to Ingmar Bergman and the vast majority of Americans would opt for a potty break.

Clearly a vast majority of Americans were craving 10 minutes of a bunch of preppy white douchebags pop-locking to music from the Best Score nominees instead.

[Ezee E]

An Ingmar Bergman montage of shots would be quite memorable I think.

[Ezee E]

Clearly a vast majority of Americans were craving 10 minutes of a bunch of preppy white douchebags pop-locking to music from the Best Score nominees instead.
Great point! My family was watching that and we all just started making fun of it, and took a much needed break.

[Spinal]

Clearly a vast majority of Americans were craving 10 minutes of a bunch of preppy white douchebags pop-locking to music from the Best Score nominees instead.

That was surreal. Breakin' to music from The Hurt Locker. :crazy:

[Pop Trash]

Ferris Bueller, while almost unbearably smug at points, holds up the best for me out of the Hughes movies.

I adore it and I'd almost compare it to the best of the French New Wave in its creativity and adoration of existential themes.

It's also amazing how many young actors Hughes discovered.

[Pop Trash]

Clearly a vast majority of Americans were craving 10 minutes of a bunch of preppy white douchebags pop-locking to music from the Best Score nominees instead.

Pop-locking is always welcome in my world. :)

[Rowland]

I adore it and I'd almost compare it to the best of the French New Wave in its creativity and adoration of existential themes.The haunting little moment with Frye staring into the painting always resonated with me, it's easily the best directed of his films in terms of visual dynamism and physical humor, and its ambitious scope always wins me over. It helps as well that I always identified with the film considerably, given that I went through most of my teen years being the Frye to my best friend's Ferris.

[Pop Trash]

The haunting little moment with Frye staring into the painting always resonated with me, it's easily the best directed of his films in terms of visual dynamism and physical humor, and its ambitious scope always wins me over. It helps as well that I always identified with the film considerably, given that I went through most of my teen years being the Frye to my best friend's Ferris.

Wow, me too, though I don't think I was nearly as morose as Cameron Frye.

[MadMan]

Hah I have a friend who's a lot like Ferris, to a certain degree (well back in high school he was). So I guess that makes me like Frye, too-although my dad isn't an abusive jerk, and I didn't have a car in high school, either. But I was fairly uptight during those years.

[B-side]

Avatar winning best cinematography actually retroactively killed Jack Cardiff.

[number8]

http://web12.twitpic.com/img/73036478-50a5cf2f8be6b03f548f85f29acaf0 16.4b95da83-full.jpg

[B-side]

Zoe Saldana is hot. That's what I'm supposed to be gleaning from that picture, no?

[number8]

On a serious note, I don't think it matters if the film is mostly CG or not. After all, Mauro Fiore must've been involved in the color correction process to finish the look of the film.

I just think all 4 other nominees turned in better looking films.

[B-side]

On a serious note, I don't think it matters if the film is mostly CG or not. After all, Mauro Fiore must've been involved in the color correction process to finish the look of the film.

I've probably said this before, and I'm sure others have made the point, but it's not necessarily that it's mostly CG that bugs people. It's the fact that Cameron does nothing interesting with the camera. The compositions are bland.

[Ezee E]

I've probably said this before, and I'm sure others have made the point, but it's not necessarily that it's mostly CG that bugs people. It's the fact that Cameron does nothing interesting with the camera. The compositions are bland.
I think the 3D hurts that. It's one of the reasons Scorsese isn't sure if he wants to try a 3D movie, because he might not be able to do what he wants with the camera.

[B-side]

I think the 3D hurts that. It's one of the reasons Scorsese isn't sure if he wants to try a 3D movie, because he might not be able to do what he wants with the camera.

I wish I knew more about the process of 3D filmmaking, if only so I could gauge how it would change the role of the camera man. I mean, are we talking serious restrictions on camera freedom?

[Ezee E]

I wish I knew more about the process of 3D filmmaking, if only so I could gauge how it would change the role of the camera man. I mean, are we talking serious restrictions on camera freedom?
All I know is that they shoot with two cameras, and that they have to be directly parallel to each other, which hurts moving shots and getting close to objects.

[B-side]

All I know is that they shoot with two cameras, and that they have to be directly parallel to each other, which hurts moving shots and getting close to objects.

Yeah, I don't like the sound of that. Cameron had some tracking shots in Avatar, no? I mean, I think I remember a few. Still, it sounds restrictive.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I don't like the sound of that. Cameron had some tracking shots in Avatar, no? I mean, I think I remember a few. Still, it sounds restrictive.
I'm sure there were a few, but with two cameras, and an elaborate dolly shot, you'd have some obstacles in the way no doubt. I also don't think you could quick pans or 360's with them.

[B-side]

I'm sure there were a few, but with two cameras, and an elaborate dolly shot, you'd have some obstacles in the way no doubt. I also don't think you could quick pans or 360's with them.

If what you're saying is true, then I'm getting more and more disturbed by this 3D jump.

[MadMan]

http://web12.twitpic.com/img/73036478-50a5cf2f8be6b03f548f85f29acaf0 16.4b95da83-full.jpgPicture isn't showing up.

[Ezee E]

Picture isn't showing up.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/73036478.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0Z RYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1268117919&Signature=Ya6Cg%2F6bZ%2F1YgAJr 8dWqLYn%2BZgw%3D

The Best Cinematography of the year.

[Ezee E]

If what you're saying is true, then I'm getting more and more disturbed by this 3D jump.
This is what I'm assuming because the two cameras have to be parallel to each other to get the proper 3D effect. If they are parallel, a 90 degree pan will result in one camera filming the back of another.

[B-side]

This is what I'm assuming because the two cameras have to be parallel to each other to get the proper 3D effect. If they are parallel, a 90 degree pan will result in one camera filming the back of another.

Yeah, I think you're right.

[MadMan]

The Best Cinematography of the year.Oh, okay. Now I'm reminded of how I felt after it won....:|

[Melville]

The two lenses are contained in a single camera.

[B-side]

The two lenses are contained in a single camera.

Oh really? Interesting.

[Melville]

Oh really? Interesting.
http://olegalexander.files.wordpress. com/2009/12/oqvqzmns4lg9sw7vfmkgrmsxo1_500 .jpg
But as I understand it, a lot of the shots in Avatar are entirely computer generated: the motion capture provides 3D data that can be used to "film" the scene any way you want afterward.

[B-side]

http://olegalexander.files.wordpress. com/2009/12/oqvqzmns4lg9sw7vfmkgrmsxo1_500 .jpg
But as I understand it, a lot of the shots in Avatar are entirely computer generated: the motion capture provides 3D data that can be used to "film" the scene any way you want afterward.

Ah, so we're back to that argument: should a film comprised almost entirely of CG be recognized in the same field as a live action film? I keep getting this image of dudes on a computer tweaking light effects and such and it cheapens the whole thing for me.

[MadMan]

Amongst all this, I do agree that Avatar shouldn't have won Best Cinematography solely based on the fact that the other nominees were simply better. The Hurt Locker's cinematography and camera work was fantastic, and really immersed you in the story and what was happening onscreen.

[Melville]

Ah, so we're back to that argument: should a film comprised almost entirely of CG be recognized in the same field as a live action film? I keep getting this image of dudes on a computer tweaking light effects and such and it cheapens the whole thing for me.
Yeah, all the lighting is done in the computer. It supposedly allows the director and actors a lot more freedom, since they don't need to always be waiting for the lighting to be set up.

[number8]

Ah, so we're back to that argument: should a film comprised almost entirely of CG be recognized in the same field as a live action film? I keep getting this image of dudes on a computer tweaking light effects and such and it cheapens the whole thing for me.

That happens anyway, though. Nowadays, the final look of a film is always so intensely processed by computers. You can manipulate lights and colors even if it's not CGI.

[ledfloyd]

That happens anyway, though. Nowadays, the final look of a film is always so intensely processed by computers. You can manipulate lights and colors even if it's not CGI.
yeah, deakins got an academy award nomination for o brother where art thou. and the look of that one was mostly developed in post. i think it's just another tool and saying it's just geeks playing with pixels is silly. it's the same mindset that claimed color and black and white cinematography should've been different categories.

[Llopin]

Speaking as an european, I can't see Hughes' contribution as transcendent and influential as it seems to be, I don't believe his films are considered as "classics" at all. Still, I can understand the Academy paying him an special hommage - but it went on for too damn long. The montage was ok, but the "thank yous" were ridiculous. TV entertainment matters aside, it's kind of hypocritical to not give Kurosawa or Bergman, directors the Academy has applauded and given awards, a deep tribute, and instead devote ten minutes to Hughes, whose work was constantly ignored by the Academy: if he was so great, why didn't you ever reward his films?

All in all, it was creepy. Part of the audience at the Kodak theater looked puzzled also, not sure if to clap hands or shrug.

[balmakboor]

Clearly a vast majority of Americans were craving 10 minutes of a bunch of preppy white douchebags pop-locking to music from the Best Score nominees instead.

Yeah. I know. I was just trying to explain the John Hughes thing. It'll take me days to try to explain everything.

[balmakboor]

I'm sure there were a few, but with two cameras, and an elaborate dolly shot, you'd have some obstacles in the way no doubt. I also don't think you could quick pans or 360's with them.

Maybe my memory has faded to nothing since my one viewing, but I thought the camera moved and swooped all over the place in Avatar. Or maybe I should have said "camera."

[balmakboor]

Here's a thought. Make the whole show tribute montages for people who passed away during the past year and have Tom Hanks walk out every ten minutes and announce a winner by simply ripping open an envelope.

[[ETM]]

Maybe my memory has faded to nothing since my one viewing, but I thought the camera moved and swooped all over the place in Avatar. Or maybe I should have said "camera."

What is the difference, though? I haven't seen shots in the film that screamed "that's impossible camera movement", not even in the shots involving flying. I distinctly recall several flying shots that appeared to be handheld-like, with slight movement, and correction as if to capture the subject better.

For one, the motion captured close-ups were framed and "shot" by Cameron as if he was using a "real" camera... he had basic lighting setup and crude CGI available in real time, so there is basically no difference between how it was shot and how it would have looked if it was all real and not CGI. The only fully CGI shots done entirely on computer were those which are done like that in every other film, like the airships firing etc.

What I don't understand is - what is the argument against "virtual" cinematography? Isn't the result what matters? Do "traditional" methods and means make a film's cinematography "better" than computer generated ones? Is it inherently "more difficult" and thus "superior"? I haven't heard a single argument to support this.

I've seen Ebert, for example, commenting on Avatar's win several times, and he just expresses an utter lack of knowledge of the process... which is normal, because there hasn't been anything done before anywhere near what they've done on this film. It's gonna take a lot of adjustment from everyone, because, frankly, CGI is not going to go away, nor should it.

[Melville]

;246977']What is the difference, though?
Yeah, I don't see any important difference. Shot composition and movement have the same effect in the film regardless of how they're achieved.

Here's a good interview talking about Avatar's filming process:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aao0YSITuxc

[[ETM]]

That's a great interview. Never seen it before, lot of the stuff is new to me.

[Grouchy]

http://olegalexander.files.wordpress. com/2009/12/oqvqzmns4lg9sw7vfmkgrmsxo1_500 .jpg
But as I understand it, a lot of the shots in Avatar are entirely computer generated: the motion capture provides 3D data that can be used to "film" the scene any way you want afterward.
Who's the dude on the left?

[number8]

Who's the dude on the left?

Jeffrey Katzenberg.

[Sycophant]

I've been thinking for a while that cinematography honors are due for those working largely or entirely in CG. There are differences in the process, but it's a lot of the same principles (and the job title's the same).

[Sycophant]

Thoughts on the show: a hosting duo could work, but they'd need to act like they actually had met each other before and have some kind of chemistry. Most of their jokes would've been just as good (bad?) played solo, and they wouldn't've come out so awfully paced. Either Baldwin or Martin could've done this better on their own. Abbot & Costello they ain't.

Alternate suggestion: Baldwin and Tracy Morgan host.

The horror montage was retarded and seemed to exist solely so they could tease "coming up: Twilight!" If they're gonna do that, they could just make the ceremony into what video game ceremonies are: promotional events. Host the premiere of the Eclipse trailer. And get me to tune out.

Wishing they had had Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly sing a song about how underappreciated horror movies are instead.

I thought we were gonna be spared Three-Six Mafia-style on-stage dancing retardation when they summed up the best song nominees quickly. Then came the score nominees and DIEDIEDIE.

Every single montage of the nominated BPs were fucking terrible. If they were assembled by the alpha version of some trailer-editing computer program, I wouldn't be surprised. Otherwise, someone should never work again. Shit. Just play the trailers.

Most of the acting montages were godawful, too, making everyone's performances look just awful.

I enjoyed the Hughes tribute, even though I've got mixed feelings on Hughes's work.

[Sycophant]

So are they gonna rerelease The Hurt Locker wide or something now? They probably should've done so in the first place. Why that was consigned to arthouse hell, I can't be sure.

[Eleven]

Now we can officially and pointlessly do this.

Best Picture winners of the first decade of the Aughts ranked (grouped into Yea, Meh, and Nay):
1. No Country for Old Men (2007)
2. The Hurt Locker (2009)
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

4. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
5. The Departed (2006)


6. Gladiator (2000)
7. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
8. Chicago (2002)
9. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
10. Crash (2005)

[Raiders]

Great
1. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
2. No Country for Old Men (2007)
3. The Hurt Locker (2009)

Good
4. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
5. The Departed (2006)

Meh
6. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Bad to Terrible
7. Gladiator (2000)
8. Chicago (2002)
9. Crash (2005)
10. A Beautiful Mind (2001)

[number8]

Great

1. No Country for Old Men
2. The Hurt Locker
3. Return of the King

Good

4. Million Dollar Baby

Meh

5. Chicago
6. Slumdog Millionaire

Bad

7. Gladiator
8. The Departed

Terrible

9. Crash
10. A Beautiful Mind

[Grouchy]

Great
1. No Country for Old Men
2. LOTR: Return of the King

Good
3. The Departed
4. Million Dollar Baby

Meh
5. The Hurt Locker
6. Gladiator
7. Slumdog Millionaire

Bad
8. Chicago

Terrible
9. A Beautiful Mind
10. Crash

[Rowland]

****
No Country for Old Men

***½
n/a

***
The Hurt Locker
The Departed

**½
Return of the King
Gladiator
Million Dollar Baby

**
Chicago
A Beautiful Mind (yeah, I don't completely hate it)
Crash (or this)

*½
Slumdog Millionaire

[Dead & Messed Up]

Liked...

1. No Country for Old Men (2007)
2. The Hurt Locker (2009)
3. The Departed (2006)
4. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Not so much...

5. Gladiator (2000)
6. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
7. Chicago (2002)
8. Crash (2005)

[Sycophant]

Also.

Dear ABC,

Your television shows look terrible. See you next year.

Signed,

Sycophant

[Rowland]

These lists are kinda samey. We need some crazy Theo-type person to post a list ranking A Beautiful Mind above NCFOM, to spice things up a bit.

[Wryan]

These lists are kinda samey. We need some crazy Theo-type person to post a list ranking A Beautiful Mind above NCFOM, to spice things up a bit.

I'm pleased to see so many people liking ROTK, tho.

[Watashi]

Also.

Dear ABC,

Your television shows look terrible. See you next year.

Signed,

Sycophant
Modern Family is pretty funny.

[baby doll]

Great: N/A

Solid: The Hurt Locker, No Country for Old Men

I remember liking them at the time, but wouldn't watch them again: A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Crash

Sucked: Gladiator, Million Dollar Baby, The Departed, Slumdog Millionaire

[Ezee E]

Gladiator - ***
A Beautiful Mind - ** 1/2
Chicago - ***
Return of the King - ***
Million Dollar Baby - ****
Crash - ***
The Departed - ****
No Country For Old Men - ****
Slumdog Millionaire - *** 1/2
Hurt Locker - ****

Can't say that I'm too disappointed. And I initially liked A Beautiful Mind when I first saw it.

[Pop Trash]

Great:
No Country for Old Men

Good:
Million Dollar Baby
The Hurt Locker
The Departed
Gladiator
Return of the King

Meh:
Slumdog Millionaire
Crash
A Beautiful Mind

[EyesWideOpen]

So are they gonna rerelease The Hurt Locker wide or something now? They probably should've done so in the first place. Why that was consigned to arthouse hell, I can't be sure.

It's been on dvd for almost a month so I'm gonna go with no.

[EyesWideOpen]

Great

No Country for Old Men
The Hurt Locker

Good

Return of the King
Million Dollar Baby
Slumdog Millionaire
Crash
Gladiator

Meh

The Departed
A Beautiful Mind

Bad

Chicago

[MadMan]

1. ROTK-98
2. The Departed-98
3. No Country for Old Men-97
4. The Hurt Locker-95
5. Slumdog Millionaire-90, but I wonder if a second viewing would bring that rating down. Probably.
6. Chicago-85, rather generous now that I think about it. Another one I have no interest in revisiting, though.
7. Gladiator-83, but I enjoy the hell out of it. Should not have won best picture.

Haven't seen: Million Dollar Baby, Crash, A Beautiful Mind. Only the top two crack my Top 20 for the 2000s, and none of them are my #1 for their respective year except for ROTK. Which could be unseated if I see more movies from 2003. Still, I have no problem with the Top 4 being Best Picture winners.

[chrisnu]

Great

No Country For Old Men

Very Good

Million Dollar Baby
The Hurt Locker
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Pretty Good

The Departed

Not So Good

Slumdog Millionaire

Terrible

Crash

[Sxottlan]

****:
Return of the King
No Country for Old Men
The Departed

***1/2:
The Hurt Locker
Gladiator

***:
Million Dollar Baby

**1/2:
Slumdog Millionaire
A Beautiful Mind

**:
Chicago

*1/2:
Crash

[Sxottlan]

Thoughts on the show:

-Wildly divergent production quality throughout the show. Some of the presentations were absolutely fine and others were just abysmal and perplexing. When they did show clips, the show's producers opted to go the montage route. I have never understood this. While I guess I can see how it gives the viewer a general overview of a film or performance, they could spend just as much time, if even less, on showing a single scene. They so got it right in 2006 when they just showed a scene from each of the BP nominees as an outro from a segment. What a concept!

And just when we think they dropped last year's god awful way of presenting the acting categories (which dragged out the ceremony even further), they opted to combine an opening montage (not entirely a bad idea) with the syncophantic tribute to make it even longer. Seriously, am I the only one who finds this new way of listing the nominees as incredibly uncomfortable to watch? They're treated like they just cured cancer.

The technical categories were also hit or miss. Categories that you assumed would be accompanied by samples of audio or visual tracks were completely bland presentations with a presenter reading a list and that was it. Very poor. Too bad if you wanted to hear what made the sound nominees so good. They apparently didn't have time for it. They did however, have time for a quick piece on sound design in general, but it came across as yet another attempt by the Academy to apologize for not nominating The Dark Knight for best picture last year.

Also perplexing, a solitary tribute to horror. Wha? What was the point of that? Sure, it's nice for the genre to get a little airtime, but when it's the only one? Bizarre. Was this yet another attempt to make up for it not being included in last year's group of equally pointless montages devoted to just a few genres?

-Winners. I'm generally pleased with who won. When The Hurt Locker took both sound categories, I was surprised, but had not at that point thought it meant Avatar was toast. Lo and behold. I enjoyed both films equally, but since neither were my abolute favorite film of last year, their success Sunday night was well-received by me, but not enthusiastically. It'll be curious to see the ratings this year versus next as I'm afraid too many will see Avatar's loss as a big bait-and-switch. I am glad however to see Kathryn Bigalow win best director. That was a treat. And I'm also so very glad that a Star Trek film finally brought home the hardware.

-It was however criminal for Precious (I refuse to type it's self-promoting sub-title) to take home one more Oscar over Inglourious Basterds. Such a terrible film, especially for robbing District 9 of what I thought was it's one real chance for a win in the Adapted Screenplay category. I didn't even notice that Up in the Air didn't win anything until afterwards. There's a movie that I've already forgotten entirely about.

-One good aspect that helped keep the evening glued together was Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. I thought they were both very funny. And I loved their Paranormal Activity spoof.

[Morris Schæffer]

Return of the King ****
No Country for Old Men ****
The Departed ***
The Hurt Locker ****
Gladiator ***½
Million Dollar Baby ***½
Slumdog Millionaire **½
A Beautiful Mind **
Chicago n/a
Crash *

[Arthur Seaton]

Great: N/A


Eyeroll.

[balmakboor]

...robbing District 9 of what I thought was it's one real chance for a win in the Adapted Screenplay category.

I thought its screenplay was clearly its weakest element. Seldom has a feature felt so much to me like a good short film stretched out like a piece of taffy.

[Arthur Seaton]

I thought its screenplay was clearly its weakest element. Seldom has a feature felt so much to me like a good short film stretched out like a piece of taffy.

But compared to Precious, that screenplay was a masterpiece.

[balmakboor]

But compared to Precious, that screenplay was a masterpiece.

But, compared to both of those, Up in the Air was a masterpiece. And compared to all of the nominees, A Single Man was a masterpiece. And around and around it goes...

I liked and disliked both District 9 and Precious in pretty equal measures. Mostly a leaned toward liking them.

[baby doll]

Eyeroll.When I say "great," I mean one of the greatest films of all time. The Hurt Locker and No Country for Old Men are both very fine films, but are they as mind-bogglingly awesome as I'm Not There. and A Serious Man (my favorite films of 2007 and 2009, respectively)? Not in my estimation they're not. Not even close. The last truly great film to win a best picture Oscar was Schindler's List.

[Adam]

If I picked the past ten best picture winners from the nominees provided

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Gosford Park
The Pianist
Lost in Translation
Sideways
Munich
The Depahted
There Will Be Blood
Milk
A Serious Man

wheeeee!

[Pop Trash]

Traffic
In the Bedroom
The Pianist
Lost in Translation
Sideways (maybe)
Brokeback Mountain
The Departed (maybe...bad year)
No Country for Old Men
Milk (another bad year)
Inglourious Basterds

[Mysterious Dude]

Traffic
Moulin Rouge!
Gangs of New York
Master and Commander
The Aviator
Good Night and Good Luck
Babel
No Country for Old Men
Slumdog Millionaire
A Serious Man

A little Scorsese- and Coen brothers-heavy, I suppose. A lot of them are far, far away from being my favorite movie of the year, of course.

[baby doll]

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Gosford Park
The Pianist
Mystic River
The Aviator
Capote
Babel
There Will Be Blood
The Reader
A Serious Man

Of those, I'd say that only Gosford Park, The Pianist, A Serious Man, and maybe Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon are great films. If you're curious as to why I picked Babel, it's because I disliked every other film nominated that year.

[Raiders]

2000: Traffic
2001: LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002: LOTR: The Two Towers
2003: LOTR: The Return of the King
2004: The Aviator
2005: Munich
2006: The Queen
2007: There Will Be Blood
2008: Milk
2009: A Serious Man

[Sycophant]

2000. Crouching Tiger, Hidden DRagon
2001. Moulin Rouge!
2002. Chicago
2003. Lost in Translation
2004. Sideways
2005. Brokeback Mountain
2006. Letters from Iwo Jima
2007. No Country for Old Men
2008. Milk
2009. A Serious Man

[Rowland]

2000: Traffic
2001: LOTR: The Fellowship of the Rings
2002: LOTR: The Two Towers
2003: Lost in Translation
2004: Sideways
2005: Munich
2006: Letters from Iwo Jima
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: Milk
2009: Inglourious Basterds

[chrisnu]

2000: Traffic
2001: Gosford Park
2002: N/A (haven't seen enough)
2003: Lost in Translation
2004: Sideways
2005: Capote
2006: Letters from Iwo Jima
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: Milk
2009: A Serious Man

[ledfloyd]

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Gosford Park
The Pianist
Lost in Translation
Sideways
Good Night and Good Luck
Letters from Iwo Jima
Frost/Nixon? awful nominees
A Serious Man
No Country for Old Men

[soitgoes...]

2000: Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
2001: Gosford Park
2002: The Pianist
2003: Lost in Translation
2004: Million Dollar Baby
2005: Good Night, and Good Luck
2006: Babel
2007: There Will Be Blood
2008: Milk
2009: A Serious Man

One thing is certain, the Academy does a piss poor job of picking their nominees let alone the winners.

[Ezee E]

00: Gladiator
01: Moulin Rouge
02: The Pianist
03: Mystic River
04: Million Dollar Baby
05: Munich
06: The Departed
07: There Will Be Blood
08: Slumdog Millionaire
09: Inglourious Basterds

[Ivan Drago]

2000: N/A
2001: LOTR: FOTR
2002: Gangs of New York
2003: Lost in Translation
2004: The Aviator
2005: Capote
2006: The Departed
2007: There Will Be Blood
2008: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
2009: Inglourious Basterds

[balmakboor]

Well what the hell.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
In the Bedroom
The Pianist
Master and Commander
The Aviator
Munich
Babel
There Will Be Blood
Milk
Inglourious Basterds

[Philosophe_rouge]

2000: Gladiator
2001: LOTR
2002: Chicago
2003: Lost in Translation
2004: The Aviator, but I hate it
2005: Capote
2006: The Departed
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: Milk
2009: A Serious Man

Oh my, the nominees are terrible. Of those, I think only 4 are actually in my top 10 of the given year.

[Eleven]

2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon*
2001: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring*
2002: The Pianist
2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2004: Sideways
2005: Good Night, and Good Luck.
2006: Letters from Iwo Jima (least of all evils)
2007: There Will Be Blood*
2008: Milk (least of all evils)
2009: A Serious Man*

* in my top 5 (or 10, for 2009) of that year

[Fezzik]

I'll give this a shot:

2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
2001: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002: Chicago
2003: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
2004: The Aviator
2005: Munich
2006: The Departed
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: Milk (yikes, this was a weak crop of nominees)
2009: Inglourious Basterds

[balmakboor]

Oh my, the nominees are terrible. Of those, I think only 4 are actually in my top 10 of the given year.

Yeah. Making my list was almost eye-opening. Four or five times I wanted to say "none of the above."

[Eleven]

Top ten nominated perfs:

Best Actor
1. Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood (2007)
2. Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain (2005)
3. Nicolas Cage in Adaptation. (2002)
4. Bill Murray in Lost in Translation (2003)
5. Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler (2008)
6. Adrian Brody in The Pianist (2002)
7. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Capote (2005)
8. David Strathairn in Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)
9. Leonard DiCaprio in The Aviator (2004)
10. Sean Penn in Milk (2008)

Least favorites: Sean Penn in I Am Sam (2001), Leonardo DiCaprio in Blood Diamond (2006), Morgan Freeman in Invictus (2009).


Best Actress
1. Julianne Moore in Far From Heaven (2002)
2. Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
3. Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married (2008)
4. Penelope Cruz in Volver (2006)
5. Diane Lane in Unfaithful (2001)
6. Julie Christie in Away from Her (2007)
7. Samantha Morton in In America (2002)
8. Catalina Sandino Moreno in Maria Full of Grace (2004)
9. Felicity Huffman in Transamerica (2005)
10. Helen Mirren in The Queen (2006)

Least favorites: Renee Zellweger in Chicago (2002), Kate Winslet in The Reader (2008), Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side (2009).


Best Supporting Actor
1. Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds (2009)
2. Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
3. Ken Watanabe in The Last Samurai (2003)
4. Ian McKellen in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
5. Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight (2008)
6. Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men (2007)
7. Mark Wahlberg in The Departed[/] (2006)
8. Tom Wilkinson in [I]Michael Clayton (2007)
9. Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast (2001)
10. Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator (2000)

Least favorites: Ethan Hawke in Training Day (2001), Tim Robbins in Mystic River (2003), Djimon Honsou in Blood Diamond (2006).


Best Supporting Actress
1. Cate Blanchett in I'm Not There (2007)
2. Meryl Streep in Adaptation (2002)
3. Helen Mirren in Gosford Park (2001)
4. Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone (2007)
5. Kate Hudson in Almost Famous (2000)
6. Rinko Kikuchi in Babel (2006)
7. Marisa Tomei in The Wrestler (2008)
8. Virginia Madsen in Sideways (2004)
9. Natalie Portman in Closer (2004)
10. Rachel Weisz in The Constant Gardener (2005)

I actually don't actively dislike the Supporting Actress nominees enough to put forward real least favorites, but I was underwhelmed with Ruby Dee in American Gangster and Anna Kendrick in Up in the Air.


Well, that was a depressing exercise.

[Raiders]

Only 2000 had a list of nominees with nothing from my top ten. Every other year the film I chose I really like.

[Rowland]

2008 was the worst year for nominations. I only gave my favorite of the bunch **½. 2005 is pretty lousy as well, though I prefer Munich to Milk by a few hairs.

[Silencio]

2000: Traffic
2001: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002: Chicago
2003: Lost in Translation
2004: Sideways
2005: Brokeback Mountain
2006: The Departed
2007: There Will Be Blood
2008: Milk
2009: Inglourious Basterds

[Ezee E]

I don't mind many of the movies that got nominated. But there's some that I completely forgot existed. Frost/Nixon for one.

[[ETM]]

Frost/Nixon for one.

I can't forget Rebecca Hall, no way.

[Grouchy]

00: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
01: Gosford Park
02: The Pianist
03: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
04: The Aviator (out of those)
05: Good Night, and Good Luck
06: The Departed
07: There Will Be Blood
08: Milk
09: A Serious Man

[baby doll]

Now let's compare the Oscars with Cannes...

Great: The Pianist, Elephant, L'Enfant, Entre les murs, The White Ribbon

Solid: Dancer in the Dark, The Wind That Shakes the Barley

Overrated: Fahrenheit 9/11, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days

Haven't seen: The Son's Room

If I picked the winners:

2000: Yi Yi
2001: La Pianiste
2002: demonlover
2003: Dogville
2004: The Holy Girl
2005: Manderlay
2006: Marie Antoinette
2007: Persepolis
2008: Entre les murs
2009: The White Ribbon

[Chac Mool]

Picking from the nominees, along with (my own choice(s) listed in brackets for your convenience...):

2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
(ditto)

2001: The Fellowship of the Ring
(In the Mood for Love)

2002: Gangs of New York
(Talk to Her / Spirited Away / Y Tu Mama Tambien / The Quiet American)

2003: The Return of the King
(Dogville)

2004: Million Dollar Baby
(Before Sunset / Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring / Hero / Kill Bill, Vol. 2)

2005: Munich
(2046 / Memories of Murder)

2006: The Departed
(Borat / Children of Men)

2007: There Will be Blood
(ditto)

2008: Benjamin Button
(ditto)

2009: Inglorious Basterds
(ditto, if Love Exposure doesn't qualify)