AWARDS

1

My Thoughts (Alex) the Guild Award would have gone to James Cameron For Avatar, But Congrats to kathleen Bigelow for the Hurt locker. As for the Oscars in March it all Depends on what the Academy Voters liked in the Best Director/film.

Cineprog on Jan 31, 2010

2

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.

William on Jan 31, 2010

3

2nd big win for Bigelow Alex. The Oscar race should be between Bigelow and Tarrantino but Bigelow is definetely the front runner now. As for Avatar, it will no doubt get a lot of nominations but it will be shut out of the major awards.

Hattori Hanzo on Jan 31, 2010

4

Ho Hum

Roland Bay on Jan 31, 2010

5

Avatar was good, but the storyline was very predictable and simple. (Its Disneys Pocahontas story) Visuals alone don't make a movie great. Its nice to see an award given to a film that deserves it. (Imo, Oscars NEVER do) A realistic war film with deep issues. Congrats, Mrs. Bigelow!

Ryan on Jan 31, 2010

6

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!

Jacob Klinger on Jan 31, 2010

7

J.J. Abrams for Best Director for Star Trek.

Craig on Jan 31, 2010

8

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.

Linkfx on Jan 31, 2010

9

Considering all Avatar won was the Golden Globes and every other precursor award has gone to Hurt Locker.....Id say Bigelow has a bigger awards shelf than the one globe wonder Cameron. Might I remind everyone that the Globes was highly populist, with the exception of 1 or 2 awards.

Al on Jan 31, 2010

10

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

me on Jan 31, 2010

11

@3 If Avatar is a scifi version of Pocahontas then Hurt Locker is a less homerotic and action version of Jarhead. So both really aren't original. I thought Avatar was better directed while Hurt Locker was the better "film".

np on Jan 31, 2010

12

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 !!

andrew on Jan 31, 2010

13

#9 - Not even close buddy. Avatar had the same exact story as Pocahontas, and the same characters. Hurt Locker just had the same setting, nothing predictable, nothing cliche. Hurt Locker is much, much more original.

Al on Jan 31, 2010

14

Yay!!! Go Kathryn, good for her.

dex on Jan 31, 2010

15

That picture looks like Raoul Duke covering the Mint 400.

Frightened Inmate #2 on Jan 31, 2010

16

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

T on Jan 31, 2010

17

thats a badass picture of Kathryn Bigelow, who directed the best movie of 2009

Scott McHenry on Jan 31, 2010

18

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.

Anon on Jan 31, 2010

19

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with the Guild. Let's just frame the discussion on Hurt Locker. While it could have turned out to be an interesting story, it wasn't well told. The camera work was inconsistent, the characters were cookie cutter and the editing was herky jerky among other problems. 1) Camera work. Hilarious in the opening scene and for a good 20 minutes after that. I think she went with the idea: if the "unstable hand held" camera look is "edgy", then lets hook the camera to a washing machine with a broken spring, then we'll be _uber-hyper-mega_ edgy. It was laughable how bad the camera work was in the beginning of the movie. And then there is the consistency part. It almost feels like she went through a few Directors of Photography for this movie, the camera work is so different throughout. Are the later scenes with bombs _not_ edgy all of a sudden? 2) Cookie cutter characters. From reading the back of the box, the main character was supposed to be "hooked" on war or something, loving the "rush". But to seriously see a leader like that be _so_ reckless and disregard simple protocols made the character completely unbelievable as an actual soldier. So what are we left with... an idiot. That's the best word to describe him. To completely disregard his team like that removes any believability or sympathy you may have for him. The rest of the squad was simply there to spit out predictable lines. The faux-anger that was displayed when the injured soldier was being airlifted out was laughable as well. One second yelling the most ridiculous tripe at one guy, then switch gears, be completely calm and talk to the other guy as if nothing was going on. (sorry, can't remember the names... forgettable) 3) Herky Jerky editing. Some of the scenes were so badly put together that you wondered if the blu-ray player skipped a track. One second we are running down the alleyway, chasing a bad guy (don't get me started on why they are there in the first place, there's absolutely no reason for them _to_ be there). The tone and feel is fast paced, action... then cut to... shower scene? He's in the shower ... in his uniform ... crying game? I must have missed something. Anyway, the movie is _just_ as predictable as anything else out in 2009. The fact that it is being awarded anything is a mystery. Hurt Locker will be forgotten the day after the Oscars, whether it wins anything there or not. Too bad real achievements are being overlooked.

Andrew on Jan 31, 2010

20

#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.

Bob Dylan on Jan 31, 2010

21

#18 Well put. I agree with everything you said.

Andy on Jan 31, 2010

22

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

Shane on Jan 31, 2010

23

Raise your hand if anon is an asshole preaching his negative views on the American Military.

Xerxex on Jan 31, 2010

24

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

Xerxex on Jan 31, 2010

25

(raises hand)

Al on Jan 31, 2010

26

#16 is on the mark.

Dice on Jan 31, 2010

27

About time

Jones Scott on Jan 31, 2010

28

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.

Cody on Jan 31, 2010

29

Great movie.

Ambient on Jan 31, 2010

30

#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.

Anon on Jan 31, 2010

31

who the fuck is Glenn Beck? and what the fuck is Glenn Beckism? And if indeed (and this is a big if) I tried to convince you otherwise, well to tell you the truth I don't have the energy mainly due to the fact there is a Glenn Beck marathon on TV and I can't miss it, then later I gotta go kill some baby seals, after all I am "Immoral" since we've met before. So I'm fully booked sorry. I will say this the American military is not perferct but disrespecting the men and women serving is down right pitiful, most join because they feel the need to be a patriot and yes the war has gotten out of hand and our current gov't sucks right now, but in 10 years, 20 years who know's maybe the people running the world will figure out what to do, til then Go America, Go American Military, and Go Bigelow, go dumb rednecks! And what do the Chistians gotta do with anything? and to call me a moron who needs the latest GOP asshole to go "We need to do this" is retarded to say the least...but you're irrational and I see no point to convicne a troll with a stick up his ass. p.s. Glenn Beck is a fucking moron.

Xerxex on Jan 31, 2010

32

#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.

Al on Jan 31, 2010

33

Anon- Yes, I did really serve, and I never said that liberal New Yorkers were representative of the military in general. My point was that there is no representative stereotype for the enlisted person. People join the military for a large variety of complex reasons, and your reductive characterizations are simply wrong. It makes me sad when someone makes a blanket judgment of such a large group of people like you are. You sound just like the people you seem to hate.

Bob Dylan on Jan 31, 2010

34

#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."

wherever on Jan 31, 2010

35

34 - My mistake, i forgot the fact that your wild assumptions are much more credible than a person who more than likely actually knows what they are talking about. You realize you're stereotyping a whole body of people based off of your own thoughts that just popped out of your ass. Its extremely disrespectful to assume people just want to kill, especially because thats not even the point of our military operations....you just want this to be another Vietnam, and if you feel the war is just as pointless as Vietnam, thats your opinion, but the military itself is considerable different from how things were back then. Namely psychoanalysis upon return home, instead of telling them "If you're a bunch of sissies, you're welcome to be evaluated" - as they did in Nam' they now have mandatory daily check ups every day for 2 weeks, just before returning home, and then further examinations. Things are much different, get over it.

Al on Jan 31, 2010

36

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.

Bob Dylan on Jan 31, 2010

37

#35-Yeah dickhead, a million Iraquis died, but I'm sure that everyone that served is really decent and responsible. After all, those are the kind of people the Marines want, right? And that's how they train their soldiers to act. And those are really the people that sign up. Wake the fuck up. If you want to have these weird fantasies about the military, so be it. However, there are a gazillion sources that portray the mainstream of the contemporary military the way I am. And I'm not talking about journalists that are liberals or pacifists. I'm including plenty of idiots that also romanticize the whole "get some" bullshit. In any case, I'd stress here that you're a douchebag, because you're getting all upset, at worst, about the fact that I'm mischaracterizing some military people. Have you ever felt upset about all the people that died in Iraq? Ever? For one second? Ever talk about that on a thread? Doubt it. You find it more offensive that I made this post than, for example, the fact that all the time drones kills innocent Afghanistanis to catch a single criminal. Would you brush that off if the US military invaded your city and killed hundreds of people to catch one homicidal criminal hiding in the area? Doubt it.

wherever on Jan 31, 2010

38

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?

Al on Jan 31, 2010

39

I assume Wherever is Anon and he is attempting to make us believe he has follower if not Anon I apologize. Al Bob Dylan don't waste your time with this trolling imbecile, he isn't not even worth it. Wherever what is the point? arguring on the internet? especially this website? The is a movie forum not a political one, Democrates, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Right Wing, and Left Wing its fucking stupid to argure about. Go somewhere else and stop trolling on his website.

Xerxex on Jan 31, 2010

40

#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?

jebstuart on Jan 31, 2010

41

#18 anon just because youre paranoid does not mean that theyre not after you.

jebstuart on Jan 31, 2010

42

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

jd on Jan 31, 2010

43

I gotta agree with you JD, The Hurt Locker is a good movie, but rather forgetful I for one hope Up in the Air wins, but I would love to see Inglourious Basterds take it. Bigelow does deserve it, but this years oscars has a lot of movies to choose from.

Xerxex on Jan 31, 2010

44

#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.

wherever on Feb 1, 2010

45

#5 I couldn't agree with you more. Avatar is one part aliens, one part Fern Gully, and one part Dances with Wolves. Don't get me wrong, I liked Avatar and thought it was visually stunning. However, great visual effects shouldn't make Cameron a winner in the best director category, neither should the movie be considered the best of the year. Wins and props for the special effects and cgi crew though. I remember watching Avatar and remembering that some of the concepts on Pandora regarding plant and insect life, and her ability to communicate with all living things being very much the same as in the movie The Dark Crystal. Some of the plants even looked exactly the same. Like you said, the story was predictable also. I've seen all the main movies that could be up for the best director and picture award, and I'm hoping skill wins out over visual technology. I am extremely happy for Bigelow's win. Congrats!

Tony on Feb 1, 2010

46

#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.

Andrew on Feb 1, 2010

47

Congratz to Kathryn Bigelow! I loved Avatar and James Cameron is a great director, but Kathryn deserves this win. Her direction of these characters drew me into this film and it was good to see what these troops go thru and have to deal with when their over there. Makes me appreciate what their doing all the more. I'm rooting for her for the oscars and also for Jeremy Renner for best Actor. Congratz again Kathryn!

steven on Feb 6, 2010