I thought it was a horrendously bad, stupid film. There are also a few reviewers who gave it negative feedback, but they were drowned out by the ones falling over themselves to praise a movie dealing with the struggles of an inner city black girl, regardless of its quality. Even ignoring how cheap the film was made, and the numerous editing and technical flaws, my main gripes were Spoiler 1. There was no punchline. Absolutely no point. We see Precious struggling, and struggling, and struggling...and that's the end of the film. What was the theme? What were we supposed to get out of it? Damned if I know. Worst of all, the character mostly just goes with the flow, so there's no real interest around her mindspace, motivations, and character. 2. The dream sequences were silly and severely clashed with the "gritty" nature of the rest of the work. I don't want to use the word "realistic", because lots of shit throughout the work made no fucking sense. A lot of people make fun of "Crash" for being a really lousy film. (It won Best Picture, by the way) Well, I thought this was significantly worse.
The two female performances are better than the story as a whole, which is why I doubt it's a serious contender for Best Picture or Best Adapted Screenplay. That's nothing new, though, since Doubt was a pretty dry film too but earned four acting nods last year.
A couple friends whose opinions I generally respect saw it and told me essentially what KIMaster said. Terrible movie, filled with every possible cliche one could pull out of the inner city, etc... They even said the acting wasn't that great, one of the main things everyone is going nuts for. Also, when I was in high school I read the first 40 or so pages of the "novel" this movie is based on and wanted to gouge my eyes out. That was awhile ago and I've forgotten the specifics, but I remember I hated it and told the person that recommended it to me that she was an idiot.
I definitely agree with the bolded part, if for no other reason than the disgusting number of people who were so eager to praise Mariah Carey's barely noticeable performance. The movie was "good" in the sense that I'd place it to the right, even slightly, of an imaginary line between "good" and "bad". It did suffer from a lot of the problems KIMaster mentioned although I still maintain that Mo'Nique and Sidibe were very, very impressive. As for the novel Push, I wouldn't come anywhere near a piece of fiction written by someone who describes herself as a "performance poet".
When I first saw it, I just thought it was "good". Now that it has sunk in I put it in my top 5 for the year. The "artfag lemmings" no doubt love that it's foreign and ambiguous and somewhat controversial--but even a broken clock is right twice a day. It's a strange movie, but engrossing. The director does a fantastic job of painting this small German town with an undertone of hostility in it. I wouldn't recommend it to most of my friends though. It is an arthouse-style movie, and not everyone is going to like that it can be slowly paced, subtle, and leave thematic questions unresolved for the audience to think about.
For the first time in a long time I actually saw all of the films up for award (except Precious of course, I mean come on.....) A couple quick comments: Hurt Locker- Great movie and absolutely had an award winning caliber feel to it. It was incredibly suspenseful, well acted and had a great storyline. However it had it's climax in the middle/towards the end of the movie, so it had a weak ending. It stuck with the story but it left you wishing for a little bit more oomph at the end, because it was such an excellent story. The Blind Side- This was a good movie but an academy award winner? I just don't see it at all. It had an almost predictable plot (especially because you know the true story) but follows the rag's to riches. beat the odds formula you have seen in may other films. Don't get me wrong it's a great movie, I would definitely recommend taking your family to see it but best film of the year? No way. Likewise I can't see Sandra Bullock getting the best actress award, when someone earns this award I literally can not take my eyes off them. I feel like they steal the scene every chance they get (Daniel Day Lewis "There will be Blood" Heath Ledger "The Dark Knight" ) I just didn't get that with her in this movie. She was excellent in it, just not the best. I'm not even sure I liked the movie "There will be Blood" but D-Day was so amazing in it I couldn't keep my eyes off the screen. That being said I would love to see Christoph Waltz win best supporting actor, I thought he was exceptional. The rumor mill has Jeff Bridges all but locked up with "Crazy Heart," I have not researched it that well but when was the last time an actor won Golden Globe, SAG and the Oscar? Just curious. I am actually looking forward to this years award because I have seen so many of the films.
Well if you're asking strictly about the Lead Actor category, it actually happens quite often. It didn't happen last year because the Hollywood Foreign Press predictably gave a Globe to Mickey Rourke over Sean Penn, but prior to that Daniel Day-Lewis, Forest Whitaker, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Jamie Foxx all "swept"* the three awards for four straight years. If you're asking generally, both Heath Ledger and Kate Winslet** won all three last year awards last year. *I put swept in quotation marks because the Golden Globes hand out two awards for Lead Actors/Actresses...one for drama and one for musical/comedy. (Foxx won for a musical, not a drama.) That's just one of several reasons the Golden Globes are pretty worthless. **Kate Winslet won Best Supporting Actress at the SAGs and GGs for The Reader but won Best Actress for the same role at the Oscars.
Oh, you silly people. I've seen exactly one movie on this list, yet, as shown below, it's obvious who will win. Oh, and aliens never win. # “Avatar” James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers Nope, won for Titanic. He got his Oscar, though he hasn't produced anything worth one. Well, except for maybe best cameo in 'Entourage.' # “The Blind Side” Nominees to be determined 'Nominees to be determined' is a nice way of saying 'you ain't getting it if we can't figure out who we're giving it to.' # “District 9” Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham, Producers Now, hypothetically, my understanding is that this film is kind of a take on racism (though veiled as alienism). If there were no racially 'relevant films' then this might make a nice stand in (wherein the references to racism would be played up). But not this year. # “An Education” Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey, Producers It has a really boring title. This could be the winner. # “The Hurt Locker” Nominees to be determined Dumb title. Though dumb titles are not immediately disqualified, this one will be. # “Inglourious Basterds” Lawrence Bender, Producer Spelling counts! Sorry Tarantttintoo. # “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness, Producers Racial overtones? Check. Was a book? Check. Could be a winner. # “A Serious Man” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, Producers Now, the Coen Brothers have done some good stuff, and the academy likes them, but given that I've never seen the film, nor do I want to, I'll assume the academy feels the same way. # “Up” Jonas Rivera, Producer # “Up in the Air” Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman, Producers Both have 'Up' in their title, therefore, the academy can't give it to one, without offending the other, as well as potential confusion if the person only gets 'up' out of their mouth in reading the winner before the cheers start. You can't have folks in dresses and tuxedos milling about wondering 'wait, did we win? Did they win? Do we go to the stage? Do I stand here and clap?' So, we're left with Precious and Education. Since the Academy takes great pains in trying to show they have a moral compass, and Precious is the name of strippers the world over, 'An Education' wins it. Please note: my prediction is not based on viewing the films, knowing anything about these movies, or movies in general, as I felt this was the best way to imitate the academy's selection process.
People are discounting Avatar pretty quickly, but I view it as a pretty serious contender. Heavy White Man's Guilt flick + $2 billion box office = pretty solid chance In my view anyway. I haven't seen Hurt Locker but I really want to and am actually pulling for it to win if only because Kathryn Bigelow directed Near Dark, which is a pretty great movie.
These two people obviously haven't seen the movie. It's more about what happens after a good relationship ends. And if by "bands like Animal Collective" you mean The Smiths, a British rock band from the '80s then you'd be correct. Personally, I thought the movie had some snappy writing but I don't think it deserves an Oscar for it. I just can't stand to see a good movie get shit that it doesn't deserve.
I just saw Crazy Heart and although it features a phenomenal performance by Bridges that rivals Rourke's in The Wrestler, it had some pretty serious flaws. Honestly, if the movie had a better resolution I could almost see it getting a BP nod. I think it would be a shame if Bridges didn't get Best Actor but the Academy has made some heavily flawed decisions almost every year. My biggest gripe with the movie: Spoiler It's fine that the conclusion of the movie is one that everyone saw coming from a mile away they meet. But it's almost insulting to the audience to show Bad completely changing the way he has been for 50+ years in what seemed like nothing more than a weekend detox facility. Anyone who has ever known someone with the severe alcoholism knows that it's not something that can be fixed overnight.
I just really hopr James Cameron's ex wins best movie and director over him. Hurt Locker was 97 times better than Avatar.
Ha, I saw this movie today too and this is exactly what I came on here to post. This part was not believable at all. Spoiler I thought the movie was going to center around him changing his ways and beating alcoholism but it seemed to happen overnight. My boyfriend's dad battled alcoholism for years and I seriously would have been offended by this if I were him. Also, who knew Colin Ferrel could sing? I assumed someone else sang his parts, but I just looked it up and he sings himself. The article I read said even his agent didn't know he could sing. Interesting.
I just saw The Blind Side today and now I'm not so sure Sandra Bullock has Best Actress wrapped up. Don't get me wrong, it was a great performance placed side by side some of the other "stars" that have won the award over the past 20 years or so it wouldn't be anywhere near the worst winning performance. (That would be Helen Hunt, if you ask me.) However, strictly speaking Meryl Streep had a better showing in Julie and Julia. The Academy has routinely passed her over guiltlessly after awarding her two statues relatively early in her career (1979 and 1982) and she's been nothing but a gracious runner-up for the past 11 nominations as she sets the bar ever higher for total nominations. But, as I watched the film today I did begin to appreciate the biggest knock against Bullock's presumptive win; namely, The Blind Side is a very hokey film. I think I mentioned in an earlier post Bullock stood to be the single biggest beneficiary of the expanded Best Picture list, since The Blind Side was a certain shutout otherwise (and in fact, it isn't nominated for a single other thing). If you group Bullock loosely into the group of bankable "stars" who've won a Best Actress award over the past decade or so (Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Charlize Theron, Reese Witherspoon) then The Blind Side stands out as the least esteemed film of the bunch. To be fair, Monster wasn't recognized by the Academy at all but Theron's performance had a lot of Academy-friendly aspects to it (i.e., she went "ugly") and the film was a critical hit. Sandra Bullock didn't have the benefit of dressing herself down - quite the opposite, she looked MILF-licious the entire picture - and the performance didn't have any particularly memorable scenes either. Basically, I sense a window of opportunity for an upset that I didn't sense yesterday. Mark my words...at some point the Academy is going to want to see Meryl Streep up on the stage again and while it's nearly certain this isn't her last nomination it's also been 18 years since her name has been called. The circumstances are ripe for a sentimental avalanche and I'd place Bullock's chances of victory at about 60% now instead of about 90% after the SAGs.
Also, based on some annecdotal accounts it looks like Meryl Streep is getting a lot of the early votes from the non-actors branches of the Academy than expected based on nothing more than the sheer strength of her performance as Julia Child. Both Streep and Bullock appear to be well liked by casts, crews, and executives alike so Best Actress looks like it really will come down to a simple, bad blood-less popularity contest. As illogical as it sounds, Meryl Streep might actually be an upset Oscar winner.
Actually, it's been 28 years. Nearly three decades since one of the most talented actresses in the world won her last Oscar. I haven't seen The Blindside, but everyone who's seen it has told me it's a great movie. Then when I ask what was so great about it, I get some nonsensical replies about "the story" or "Sandra Bullock". As far as I'm concerned, this is one of those movies where everyone is so blindsided (hahahaa) by the feel-good aspect of the film that they walk out of the theater with a spring in their step, and the logical conclusion for someone who doesn't know good cinema is that it a film that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside is a good film, worthy of critical accolade. In reality, the film was probably just very efficiently made to manipulate audience emotions. I had the same problem with Avatar, which had a villain that was so obviously supposed to be the target of the audiences undying hate and loathing that it took me out of the film, even as I was hating the antagonist like a good viewer.
I guess I'm one of the few people on the board that didn't like The Hurt Locker. I understand artistic license and all but hailing this as accurate is ridiculous. I watched about 30 mins before shutting it off, Generation Kill set the bar pretty high. With any luck someone will adapt Colby Buzzel's My War to film. On a less sour note I believe Avatar will win most of the art- related Oscars its' been nominated for.
Despite what you may think of I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell, its writer/producer was right about one thing: the most important element of a good movie is story. The Hurt Locker isn't the first war move to sensationalize war and it certainly isn't the worst. (For chrissakes, Crimson Tide was a far, far worse depiction of its setting - submarines - than any other war film that comes to mind.) If it does win Best Picture, it won't be because of its "accuracy" regarding EOD and/or OIF. The story was compelling, captivating, and engaging and if enough voters list it high enough on their ballots* it stands a very good chance of taking home the first of what is sure to be many asterisk-worthy Best Picture Oscars. *In previous years voters would mark off which ONE of the five nominees they wanted to vote for Best Picture. Now, they're going to rank the ten nominees from 1-10 on the ballot and PriceWaterhouseCooper is going to pare down the results until a single winner gets 50% of the weighted stacks. It's going to be a mess, but at least the suspense is palpable. A good link explaining the nonsense is here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020405097.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05097.html</a>