LATEST NEWS

The PGA's last week weren't major enough for you? It did beat out a film that most Producers salivate over in "Avatar". Sure, they're not as accurate as predicting the major Oscar winners as the DGA, but its still a major enough win.

Ho Hum

The thing with Bigelow's movie was that is ALL around better than the others. Sure, Avatar is pretty, Precious has minorities, and Up in the Air has Clooney frowning, but none of them had the whole mind, body and soul of The Hurt Locker. They're all good, Bigelow's is just better. Congrats Kathyrn!

Yeah it hasn't won any major awards...pffft! Whatever. Anyways yes it's the best film of the year, I've said it all along. I'm afraid it won't win over avatar at the oscars but I have very little respect for the academy after the Brokeback fiasco. Avatar will win for the same reason Crash won...a ton of californians made it. Too bad.

Finally! Kathryn Bigelow deserved it. Now Best Picture at the Academy Awards for The Hurt Locker.

i'm a big Tarantino fan, was rooting for him all the way and "basterds" is my favourite film of the bunch but after watching "Hurt Locker" , have to give props for Kathryn, can't wait to see her next film !!

Yay!!! Go Kathryn, good for her.

Anyone know what klind of sunglasses that person is rocking in the image?

The Hurt Locker was marred by the annoying, questionable PC theme of "support the soldiers, even if you don't support the war." I'm pretty sure most of the white trash that signed up to kill people in the Middle East are a little less noble and sympathetic than the main character; Generation Kill is far more realistic about the character of most modern US soldiers. I recognize liberals don't want to commit the wrong of mistreating soldiers, like they did in Vietnam. However, what made that wrong was that people were drafted back then; they had no choice, unless they wanted to be fugitives or go to prison. So, a lot of nice people went to war. Not so anymore. The government isn't forcing bottom-feeders and high school drop outs from Arkansas to enlist. The vast majority of them enlist, because they're douchebags. And they're not as dumb as you think; they're not just signing up because Republicans continually spit out empty rhetoric like "freedom." Most of them really are ugly, violent, ignorant rednecks. So, I'm not buying into this lame film. In any case, no one will remember this boring crap a few years from now. PS-Just to anticipate some Glenn Beck asshole complaining that I should feel thankful for people dying for me...One, they're not doing it for me. They're doing it for money, to fulfill violent desires, or for dumb rednecks like themselves. Definitely not for me. And, even if they were "doing it for me," I'd never be thankful for someone doing something wrong---much less something so awfully wrong, like killing a lot of innocent poor people---on my behalf.

#16, You're an idiot, and you're completely misinformed. I went to Iraq when I was in the Marine Corps. None of the marines I went over there with wanted to kill people or enjoyed being at war at all. My primary focus the entire time I was over there was to save lives on both sides by keeping people from making bad decisions when they were frightened and had too much adrenaline flowing through their bodies to make rational choices. Sure, there were rednecks who served, but there were also liberal New Yorkers and representatives of many demographics out there. To stereotype the enlisted is like stereotyping all Americans, or all people from any country. It simply makes you sound ignorant. It makes you sound like Glenn Beck. I don't know why I'm trying to reason with someone who is either too narrow-minded to listen to someone with a different viewpoint, or they're a troll fishing for arguments.

Congrats Kathryn! Well deserved. Good luck with the Best Picture nom.

Anon just to clarify do you even know where the term redneck comes from?

#16 is on the mark.

Theres so many close ignorant minded comments in #16s post I don't even know where to begin. *Raises hand* As for this congratz to Bigelow, she deserves it.

#20-If you really served, then I'm sure you know what the MAJORITY of people serving are like (which is what I'm talking about--THE MAJORITY). In any case, the idea that liberal New Yorkers are representative of the military is downright laughable; you should've put "liberal" in quotation marks there, since you're obviously exploiting an idiosyncratic sense of that term. #23-You're obviously an idiot. You say I'm "preaching" simply because you disagree with my view. I could adopt the exact the same tone, but if I spewed out Glenn Beckisms, you'd never say it's preaching. Basically, you're just questing-begging. Not that a simple-minded lover of simple rhetoric---i.e., a Bushie---like yourself would recognize what that is or would be capable of seeing what's wrong with it. What's next, calling me a "socialist," cause I'm not a good-ole-boy? In any case, I am criticizing the modern US military. I think it's mostly been put to serve immoral ends, and I think most of the people that decide to join it are immoral. How about you try convincing that my view is false? I'm an open-minded guy; I'm open to the possibility of a just war. I just don't at all see how any of the recent ones qualify. If you were a moral person---though I'm sure you're not---you would see that it's our fundamental obligation to ensure that we don't start or participate in immoral wars. But I'm sure you're just one of those morons who just needs the latest elected GOP asshole to go, "We have to do this," and then you'll not only blindly obey, you'll consider anyone else immoral---and awshucks, downright unpatriotic---if they ask for evidence that we have just cause to go to war and are always conducting it justly. Funny, why don't you take the same mindless attitude toward new tax legislation? Why don't you just blindly obey that? Let me guess, because if you have to pay an extra $1 a year to help a poor black person, for example, the world would fucking end. But if 1 million innocent people die...well, that would only matter if it happened to white Christians down south. If it's just some ragheads on the other side of the world, who gives a fuck, right? #28-Point out the ignorant comments then. Let me guess, are you gonna tell me there are some exceptions? Military recruiters realize that too. That doesn't mean that they don't recognize what groups primarily join, which ones are harder to recruit, etc. Having said that, what's really left to object to? Either you're a thoughtless conservative or some naive dink who has never really been exposed to the military.

#30, I know people who have served, personally I haven't, but #20 sounds a lot like he is, in fact, a military man. And lets just say he hasn't, which I doubt, then he still has the same right to his opinion as you do. As in that case, neither of you would have the first hand experience to know what your talking about.

#32-"20 sounds a lot like he is, in fact, a military man. And lets just say he hasn't, which I doubt, then he still has the same right to his opinion as you do." I never said #20 doesn't have a right to his opinion. He's perfectly free to have false beliefs, and I'm perfectly free to correct them. Also, I haven't served, but I wasn't implying that his opinion was false because he hadn't (I was just generally indicting his credibility, because no one who has served would waste their time pointing out that "liberal" New Yorkers sometimes serve, as though that would disprove my claim that most of the US military is hicks; that's basically like saying the Republican party is diverse, because of a few random minorities). Also, even if neither of us served in the military that wouldn't mean our opinions are equally valid; one of us might be relying on more reliable testimony about the military, know more people in the military, studied the military more, and so on. Pretty obvious stuff, really. #33-Boo hoo, I characterized the military as a lot of violent, ugly trash. Geesh, I must be as bad as the assholes you served with that got a hard-on from murdering strangers. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense; a slightly exaggerated statement on a movie website about the members of an institution that have recently committed serious atrocities makes me as bad the people that committed those atrocities. You've got super priorities. Did you stop to lecture the assholes you served with that killed innocent people, or do you just reserve your moralizing for strangers on websites that take trivial swipes at the US military? Let me guess: my statement is way more offensive than the lives you saw taken, right? #31-"I will say this the American military is not perfect but disrespecting the men and women serving is down right pitiful, most join because they feel the need to be a patriot..." Well excuse me, I didn't realize they signed up to be murderers, because they're patriots and love our country. My bad. That really excuses signing up to take other people's, including all the innocent people who always end up "getting in the way" when the fighting rages. Hopefully, these assholes will start thinking of less monstrous ways to express their "patriotism."

Hah hah, you've got to be a troll. Nobody is that ignorant. Well, I hope not. Anyway, I actually just finished watching this movie. I thought it was really good. I knew a few guys who were in EOD, and I saw their work clearing IEDs and mines plenty of times when my unit was doing convoys. Dangerous stuff.

37- You just totally proved your incompetence to even understand what the war is about. Considering the war isn't even with the Iraq government at this point, or even its people, just discredits anything you said, even though it was all rubbish to begin with. We are at war with the insurgents in Iraq, the people that used to be involved with Sadam's government. Have any idea what Sadam did? Genocide. Well, its not really considered genocide, because he didn't kill at random, he killed anyone who opposed his rule. He killed his own people, and thats why we went to war. Now you can choose not to believe this, say we still shouldn't have gotten involved, say it was over oil. But don't make the mistake of thinking we are at war with the people. Hell, you can even say we made things worse for them, be as fucking delusional as you'd like. But to extremely mischaracterize the war by believing that what we are doing is killing the citizens at random.... well, that disturbing beyond a degree. You dont have to agree with the purposes of the war, or the outcome of the war, just understand whats happening. You think we killed innocent people? You really are itching for this to be Nam' aren't you?

#18,#21 you guys are total bigots from the other end of the spectrum. have a little respect for the choices that other people make that dont coincide with what you believe. wait , does that make me a bigot?

Inglourious Basterds deserves Best Picture. However, I think Up in the Air will win...the Hurt Locker is good but heavely overrated, but she should win best director. And all this war-talk has nothing to do with how good the movie is or how well it'll do...sick guys

#38-Yeah, shithead, a million people died, but none of them were innocent. You're a moron. If you could actually read, my point wasn't that we went over there specifically to kill innocent people (not that I think we went over there for legitimate reasons, either). But we killed an awful lot of innocent people just to kill a few bad guys. We would never have done that in other parts of the world. You think we'd kill hundreds of civilians in England or Canada (or America) just to get a few terrorists? Would we accept that much "collateral damage"? Not on your life, but because these were just weird poor foreigners, we didn't give a shit. You didn't give a shit. You're a douchebag. Also, we weren't at war with Sadaam, because he committed genocide. The fact you believe that is hilarious. Really, really hilarious. Ummm...we knew he did that decades ago. Like a lot of the dictators in the world, we didn't give a shit. In either case, we killed far more innocent Iraquis than Hussein ever did, so if that makes him evil, I guess we're like, super-evil. In either case, my main point is that this movie didn't at all work for me, because it wanted to be realistic. It wanted to depict the typical experience of this war from the standpoint of the typical soldier. I bought the former, not the latter. The typical soldier is now vulgar white trash, not the protagonist in the movie. All of you assholes that have a mindless hard-on for the military, patriotism, etc. can return back to your Fox News now.

#45 and everyone else that bitches about segments of the story -> therefore Cameron doesn't deserve best _Director_. Notice the emphasis on _Director_. How was the movie _DIRECTED_! IF you don't like the screenplay, then say so. But the Director assembles the story, and tells it by choosing pacing, shot selection, panoramas. Cameron not only shot the entire world with incredible skill, he created the entire place! The camera work, pacing, shot selection are all exquisite. And those are the hallmarks of a good director. The acting from Saldana was also gripping, ultra-realistic and passionate. A director that can coax that kind of performance in front of a green screen, then capture it with (newly invented) motion capture and present it so exquisitely on the screen WINS best Director.