82nd Annual Academy Awards

[Episode29]

I would guess the main problem much of the general audience would have is there wasn't much going on and it lead to an abrupt and meaningless ending.

I loved it, but I can see why many would think this.

Abrupt? Yes. Meaningless? Far from it.

 

[-Arya-]

Abrupt? Yes. Meaningless? Far from it.

I know.

Nonetheless, that would be a description coming from many people.

 

[Episode29]

I know.

Nonetheless, that would be a description coming from many people.

I get'cha.

I'm well aware it's a tough sell (more so than No Country, which at least had thriller elements to drawn crowds) but there's a difference between admitting that the flick isn't your cup of tea, or confessing it was too confusing or emotionally cold, and labelling it with the same type of grade as a Wolverine or Gamer.

 

[san15]

You're just not going to give her any credit for winning this thing, are you?

She directed an incredible movie and deserved the award. And yes, I think she deserved it over James Cameron. Sure, it makes great ratings to finally give the award to a woman (especially when she's the ex-wife of the frontrunner), but in this case it was well-earned.

Have you even see The Hurt Locker?

To be completely honest with you I think Bigelow’s win didn’t COUNT PERIOD!!!

The main reason why is because she didn’t direct a female-centric movie. On top of that most of her movies are male-centric. Future female directors will realize the hard way that in order for women to rise to the top they need to learn how to please men. The only way a female director can truly WIN is when she makes a movie centered around women.

Oh and I did see THL great movie by the way!

It’s nearly unavoidable, because 99.9% of the articles I’ve read on the web about the award show mentions Bigelow and Cameron’s former marriage. Therefore other people reading about the historic event that took place during the 82nd Annual Academy Awards will come across the same exact thing. As a result people will remember Bigelow for being the first woman to win an Oscar for directing and beating her ex-husband Cameron at the same time.

 

[jmc]

btw, Katheryn Bigalow is frigin' hot.

Got that right. What comes after cougars? t:

 

[Ipodman]

Got that right. What comes after cougars?

So if a female wins Best director, shes automatically hot? t:

 

[Drz]

The main reason why is because she didn’t direct a female-centric movie. On top of that most of her movies are male-centric. Future female directors will realize the hard way that in order for women to rise to the top they need to learn how to please men. The only way a female director can truly WIN is when she makes a movie centered around women.

So much for eguality. I guess the next time a director wins whats the argument? "the only way to truly win is when a movie is centered around african americans" or what?

 

[Octoberist]

So if a female wins Best director, shes automatically hot? t:

she's always been beautiful.

 

[Golgo-13]

I missed the show. Did District 9 win anything?

 

[Ipodman]

I missed the show. Did District 9 win anything?

sadly no

Star Trek won Best Makeup tho t:

 

[Gridiron]

The biggest thing for me is it seems pointless. The movie is barely even about the Basterds, and even Landa isn't really given much to actually do as far as an actual plot until the end. Waltz completely makes that character memorable.

90% of it between the first scene and the climax seems like a bunch of characters sitting around having witty conversations in various languages just to be showing Tarantino can write witty conversations.

Yea some scenes are good. The opening scene gets so tense it almost makes you physically uncomfortable. And the scene in the bar gets that way. But most of it doesn't feel like it's in the service of an actual story. The closest thing to a consistent plot is Shoshanna avenging her family, not anything to do with the actual Basterds, who are actually almost completely pointless, as they really affect little or nothing about the way things turn out.

I think the title throws people off a bit and makes them miss the mark about who the Basterds really are. Sure, there's the group of Jewish-Americans given that nickname, but then there's Shoshanna, who is just as much of a Basterd as they are when all is said and done. Marcel, too. That's 2/3 of the film's characters (Jewish-Americans, Shoshanna/Marcel, Nazis) that are Basterds. It's definitely about the Basterds.

Dialogue serves three purposes: story, character development, and tension. There's not a single exchange of dialogue in IB that doesn't touch on one of these. So I disagree that 90% is just a bunch of people sitting and talking. You said it yourself, they get so tense that you're physically uncomfortable. How many more 'long talking scenes' were there any? Naming two is naming a significant bulk of them, because they're all so long and yet so effective.

 

[bullets]

Impossible not to like Sandra Bullock. I'm glad she won.

The line in the opening monologue by Steve martin was hilarious " Who doesn't like Sandra Bullock....I guess we'll find out tongiht"

 

[Figs]

I think the title throws people off a bit and makes them miss the mark about who the Basterds really are. Sure, there's the group of Jewish-Americans given that nickname, but then there's Shoshanna, who is just as much of a Basterd as they are when all is said and done. Marcel, too. That's 2/3 of the film's characters (Jewish-Americans, Shoshanna/Marcel, Nazis) that are Basterds. It's definitely about the Basterds.

Dialogue serves three purposes: story, character development, and tension. There's not a single exchange of dialogue in IB that doesn't touch on one of these. So I disagree that 90% is just a bunch of people sitting and talking. You said it yourself, they get so tense that you're physically uncomfortable. How many more 'long talking scenes' were there any? Naming two is naming a significant bulk of them, because they're all so long and yet so effective.

I have a couple of friends that thought the movie sucked just because the Basterds weren't in in all that much. Personally I think the movie would have sucked if it was all about them killing Nazis. I mean seriously, how many times do you really need to see them kill and carve swastikas into Nazi foreheads. My friends like a few others just don't realize you can have too much of a good thing.

I remember hearing people ***** about the fact that Joker in TDK should have had way more scenes but to me his screen time was perfect. The fact that his scenes were spaced out well just made the anticipation for him to return that much better. Sometimes less is more.

 

[Iceman]

To be completely honest with you I think Bigelow’s win didn’t COUNT PERIOD!!!

The main reason why is because she didn’t direct a female-centric movie. On top of that most of her movies are male-centric. Future female directors will realize the hard way that in order for women to rise to the top they need to learn how to please men. The only way a female director can truly WIN is when she makes a movie centered around women.

What? It's not Bigelow's job to champion the cause for women just because she happens to be one. She just need to keep making good films regardless of whether men or women are prominent in them. Her win counts equally to all the other wins.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Gaby Sidibe gets her first major acting role after her Oscar nomination:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=64021

Can't really go wrong with Laura Linney or Oliver Platt, who, IMO are highly underrated.

 

[Iceman]

I have a couple of friends that thought the movie sucked just because the Basterds weren't in in all that much. Personally I think the movie would have sucked if it was all about them killing Nazis. I mean seriously, how many times do you really need to see them kill and carve swastikas into Nazi foreheads. My friends like a few others just don't realize you can have too much of a good thing.

I remember hearing people ***** about the fact that Joker in TDK should have had way more scenes but to me his screen time was perfect. The fact that his scenes were spaced out well just made the anticipation for him to return that much better. Sometimes less is more.

Agreed. Basterds & Joker were great with the amount with the amount of screentime they had. Don't think more time would have improved the overall perception of them.

The line in the opening monologue by Steve martin was hilarious " Who doesn't like Sandra Bullock....I guess we'll find out tongiht"

Yeah, I remember lol.

 

[Drizzle]

Some afterthoughts:

I have seen 7 of the 10 nominated pictures (I didn't see "A Serious Man", "An Education" or "Precious"). Out of these, I liked "Avatar", "Inglourious Basterds", "Up", and "District 9" more than "The Hurt Locker". I thought "Hurt Locker" was good, but personally I thought it was overrated. I guess that by the time I saw it there was so much hype that it didn't live up to my expectations. Did it deserve the Best Director award? Absolutely. Did it deserve Best Picture? To me, that's debatable.

The Acting categories were totally predictable. There were no surprises there. And I thought that Sandra Bullock totally deserved it. She was great in "The Blind Side", and I am by no means a Bullock fan.

And I have to jump on the "Kathryn Bigelow is a cougar" bandwagon. I would gladly be her pool boy.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Bigelow is hot, I must agree

Saw The Hurt Locker last night. It was a great movie, and is a different kind of movie. This film tried to be real and the actors tried to be real. What I mean by that is they tried to be like people we know, not characters. I think the movie did a great job, but I wouldn't say I was wowed by it. Up got more of a reaction out of me emotionally, though The Hurt Locker had some jarring points. I think I enjoyed Up, IG, and Up in the air more than The Hurt Locker, but I thought it was very well put together and paced. I think story wise, it def trumped Avatar, though of the two I'd probably be more likely to rewatch Avatar (which doesn't mean I thought it was a better movie...I rate films 2 different ways).

 

[Doctor Jones]

The most predictable Oscars ever but everything was well deserved. Waltz gave the best acceptance speach, and what the **** was up with that old lady interupting that documentary guy? I had to look away, it was just embaressing to watch.

Ben Stiller as a Na'vi = gold

 

[Doctor Jones]

I have a couple of friends that thought the movie sucked just because the Basterds weren't in in all that much. Personally I think the movie would have sucked if it was all about them killing Nazis. I mean seriously, how many times do you really need to see them kill and carve swastikas into Nazi foreheads. My friends like a few others just don't realize you can have too much of a good thing.

I remember hearing people ***** about the fact that Joker in TDK should have had way more scenes but to me his screen time was perfect. The fact that his scenes were spaced out well just made the anticipation for him to return that much better. Sometimes less is more.

Indeed. Joker had the perfect screentime. Not too short, and not too much like Nicholson. He appeared and played a part for parts of the beginning then disapeared for a while in the middle and came back with a bang by the truck chase and was apart of the plot from then on. Joker's screentime really gave more into Bruce's underestimation of the Joker earlier in the film. He doesn't become a huge problem, until it grows and grows and grows until Bruce loses Rachel and he finally realizes what he's up against.

 

[DACrowe]

Notice how I said "in my opinion".



The biggest thing for me is it seems pointless. The movie is barely even about the Basterds, and even Landa isn't really given much to actually do as far as an actual plot until the end. Waltz completely makes that character memorable.

90% of it between the first scene and the climax seems like a bunch of characters sitting around having witty conversations in various languages just to be showing Tarantino can write witty conversations.

Yea some scenes are good. The opening scene gets so tense it almost makes you physically uncomfortable. And the scene in the bar gets that way. But most of it doesn't feel like it's in the service of an actual story. The closest thing to a consistent plot is Shoshanna avenging her family, not anything to do with the actual Basterds, who are actually almost completely pointless, as they really affect little or nothing about the way things turn out.

And it's not that I just don't like Tarantino...I really enjoy the Kill Bill movies, for example.

IB just was a lot of "meh" to me. It just didn't do much for me besides Landa and the spectacular Nazi pwnage in the end, which was pretty epic.

That's a fair argument. I would just suggest that the movie should not be viewed as plot driven. As you say, there is not too much of a driving narrative beyond Shosanna (and the Basterds joining Operation Kino beginning at the end of Chapter 4).

But I do feel it is about just a really engaging premise, wonderfully written and acted characters and a love for cinema. Thematically a lot is happening about the deconstruction of glorification of cinema and a strong argument for artistic catharsis in cinema (it goes beyond just being a Jewish revenge fantasy) and the repercussions of having no repercussions.

I agree the Basterds are only in about a little less than half the movie. But so is Shosanna and so is Landa. They are in an ensemble. It was marketed as an action movie with men on a mission and that doesn't happen until Chapter 5. If you get past the marketing campaign, you have just a wonderful film about how great movies are. As you said the bar scene and the opening scene are incredibly intense. As is the scene where Shosanna meets Gorbbells(sp?) and is interrogated by Landa. It is all about living through these characters. And then the last third of the movie is about moving the plot along and having the power of movies win WWII in the cinematic way we all would have wanted (but have morally questioned in reality). It's just fun.


But I respect that. I will say I actually was very lukewarm about the Kill Bill movies. The first was all style and little substance to me. The second was good, but very, very slow. And Death Proof was just a bad decision all around beyond the casting. With Inglourious Basterds I just left grinning. There are so many moments like Landa pulling a Searchers and letting Shosanna live, or Donnie going Babe Ruth on the German officer or...I think I'll just stop now.

 

[DACrowe]

Notice how I said "in my opinion".



The biggest thing for me is it seems pointless. The movie is barely even about the Basterds, and even Landa isn't really given much to actually do as far as an actual plot until the end. Waltz completely makes that character memorable.

90% of it between the first scene and the climax seems like a bunch of characters sitting around having witty conversations in various languages just to be showing Tarantino can write witty conversations.

Yea some scenes are good. The opening scene gets so tense it almost makes you physically uncomfortable. And the scene in the bar gets that way. But most of it doesn't feel like it's in the service of an actual story. The closest thing to a consistent plot is Shoshanna avenging her family, not anything to do with the actual Basterds, who are actually almost completely pointless, as they really affect little or nothing about the way things turn out.

And it's not that I just don't like Tarantino...I really enjoy the Kill Bill movies, for example.

IB just was a lot of "meh" to me. It just didn't do much for me besides Landa and the spectacular Nazi pwnage in the end, which was pretty epic.

That's a fair argument. I would just suggest that the movie should not be viewed as plot driven. As you say, there is not too much of a driving narrative beyond Shosanna (and the Basterds joining Operation Kino beginning at the end of Chapter 4).

But I do feel it is about just a really engaging premise, wonderfully written and acted characters and a love for cinema. Thematically a lot is happening about the deconstruction of glorification of cinema and a strong argument for artistic catharsis in cinema (it goes beyond just being a Jewish revenge fantasy) and the repercussions of having no repercussions.

I agree the Basterds are only in about a little less than half the movie. But so is Shosanna and so is Landa. They are in an ensemble. It was marketed as an action movie with men on a mission and that doesn't happen until Chapter 5. If you get past the marketing campaign, you have just a wonderful film about how great movies are. As you said the bar scene and the opening scene are incredibly intense. As is the scene where Shosanna meets Gorbbells(sp?) and is interrogated by Landa. It is all about living through these characters. And then the last third of the movie is about moving the plot along and having the power of movies win WWII in the cinematic way we all would have wanted (but have morally questioned in reality). It's just fun.


But I respect that. I will say I actually was very lukewarm about the Kill Bill movies. The first was all style and little substance to me. The second was good, but very, very slow. And Death Proof was just a bad decision all around beyond the casting. With Inglourious Basterds I just left grinning. There are so many moments like Landa pulling a Searchers and letting Shosanna live, or Donnie going Babe Ruth on the German officer or...I think I'll just stop now.

 

[DACrowe]

To be completely honest with you I think Bigelow’s win didn’t COUNT PERIOD!!!

The main reason why is because she didn’t direct a female-centric movie. On top of that most of her movies are male-centric. Future female directors will realize the hard way that in order for women to rise to the top they need to learn how to please men. The only way a female director can truly WIN is when she makes a movie centered around women.

Oh and I did see THL great movie by the way!



It’s nearly unavoidable, because 99.9% of the articles I’ve read on the web about the award show mentions Bigelow and Cameron’s former marriage. Therefore other people reading about the historic event that took place during the 82nd Annual Academy Awards will come across the same exact thing. As a result people will remember Bigelow for being the first woman to win an Oscar for directing and beating her ex-husband Cameron at the same time.

It doesn't count? That...doesn't make sense. At all.

You claim this because she directed a movie about men? While that may be the first movie directed by a woman to win, I would argue it disspells the rather sexist notion that women can only direct movies about other women in romantic comedies or overwrought dramas. Look at past nominees, they all directed romantic period pieces. The Piano is a terrible movie about female angst in the 19th century. But it played into the idea that women can only direct movies about women in what are usually considered feminine topics.

Bigelow makes movies that prove all those clichés wrong. She can make movies that appeal to all audiences, have male protagonists (as well as female protagonists) without becoming schmultzy or obsessing over her male lead's rear ends (which is a stupid film critic theory about how women can only shoot their male leads by objectifying them).

Bigelow made a tight-as-nails war movie, probably the best since Blackk Hawk Down. And she did it her way.

 

[Doctor Jones]

My God... DACrowe, don't waste your time arguing with a belief like that. It's not even worth arguing over, much less reading.

 

[Bim]

To be completely honest with you I think Bigelow’s win didn’t COUNT PERIOD!!!

The main reason why is because she didn’t direct a female-centric movie. On top of that most of her movies are male-centric. Future female directors will realize the hard way that in order for women to rise to the top they need to learn how to please men. The only way a female director can truly WIN is when she makes a movie centered around women.

Are u serious about this? i dont mean to be rude, but that seems extremely narrow minded and discriminatory. Women shouldnt be limited to making female-centric movies in order to be recognized. If a woman makes a damned good movie, it shouldnt matter if it's male centric or female centric. If ur gonna apply this "concept" to women, then ur gonna have to do it with the men too. Men who make female-centric movies and get nominated for awards and win shouldnt count.

Sorry, i just disagree with ur idea so much i cant even see straight