IMO, could have been a "genre masterpiece" if they made an actual movie out of it instead of making what felt like a read along supplement to better material.

I thought it worked great for what it was...and they did make some major changes to it from the GN. For example, recording Comedian's death as one long sequence. I too would have definitely nominated for best pic, over the likes of "The Blindside" and "Precious". However, no way Jackie put in a better performance than Waltz...In fact, it already looks like hes putting on a repeat performance with Freddy Kruger.

Heh, the academy loves their underdog movies (Blindside, Precious) and Precious was required to take the requisite "Sundance movie that won everybody's heart." even if it wasn't so great.

That's the biggest snub this year, IMO. Rockwell was excellent in that movie and it's a shame he was overlooked.

I'd go with Star Trek for Best Picture. In fact, take all of Avatar's nominations and replace them with Star Trek and that would be much better.

To be fair, this year looks pretty pathetic. They up it to 10 films for Best Picture, yet include crap like 'The Blind Side', Avafreakinretard, Up, and District 9.

I would have taken these out for sure with the possible removal of The Hurt Locker and Precious.

For me the AA's looks very amateurish this year and in no way has distinguished itself from the usually goofy GG's.
If 'A Serious Man' happens to pull off the surprise win, I may recant.

You are very clever.

Thank you oh so very much. You truly are a king among men.

go here.

http://images.dvdtalk.com/images/smilies/sarcasm.gif

Sam Rockwell should have

Congratulations on not liking all the commercially successful movies of the year.

Snubbs and Crockett - They're cops!

You seem to equate commercial success to quality?

Is this what your point was?

No. I was merely pointing out that the movies you slammed were all movies that the general movie going population saw and enjoyed based on the box office performance.

I find it strange that some people seem to think of it as a badge of honor to NOT like movies that everybody else does.

That would imply that there weren't films more deserving than The Blind Side, and if that's the best rationale you can use for supporting Watchmen, maybe that film could use the support of someone who appreciates it more than you.

He didn't threadcrap, he disagreed. And if you started the thread so that you could praise Watchmen all you pleased, you should have just stuck to the Watchmen thread. Unless of course that was just a poorly-worded way to state that since you started the thread, you somehow have ownership over what opinions people can or can't express. Which would just make you look silly, rather than just another petulant Watchmen fan who can't understand why the critics couldn't appreciate the attention to detail put into Silk Spectre's costume.

Aweee. I started to well-up until I clicked that link.

No, I like film in general. I just think these particular films were not worthy of being listed among the 10 best films of the year, which the Academy basically says when they nominate a film for Best Picture.

I simply do not care how much the film makes. I just go by my thoughts on how the film was done. Could have been made for thousands or millions or hundreds of millions. I like small films, but I also like a few big budget films too. I just do not care what the box office is on a film.

If you can make a good/great film while spending a fairly small amount such as what was done with 'A Serious Man', then that is great. If it makes money, thats perfect! Happy for them.

But, if you spend the GNI of Yemen to make a film and it turns out like Avatar...well then, I think someone should be shot. If you can spend that much and turn out something great, great!

That's all well and good. I totally get your point. I don't believe that box office success equals quality either. Some of my favorite movies made very little at the box office. You just have to realize that you're in the minority in regards to some of the movies you slammed. MOST people liked Avatar and Up. It's just the way it's always been, the majority rules.

And by the way...off topic a bit, but Avatar really didn't cost THAT much. Some sources claimed it cost $500 million, but more accurately it cost closer to $300 million, which is similar to the third Pirates movie. Wikipedia actually lists Avatar as the 4th most expensive movie ever made behind Pirates, Spiderman 3 and Half Blood Prince. I'm sure it did approach $500 million including marketing, but most likely those other movies did too.

And this is just my opinion, but I don't feel that the Academy should award Best Picture to a film that "nobody" saw. A Serious Man, An Education and The Hurt Locker made $9 million, $8 million and $12 million respectively. Granted none of those movies were widely released, but no matter how good they might be, I just don't agree with awarding Best Picture to a movie that a very small percentage of the population has even heard of, let alone actually saw.

I was browsing the Oscar archives and found the 1974 Best Actor category. This has to be one of the worst choices in history. Look at the competition.

Art Carney -- Harry and Tonto {"Harry"}
Albert Finney -- Murder on the Orient Express {"Hercule Poirot"}
Dustin Hoffman -- Lenny {"Lenny Bruce"}
Jack Nicholson -- Chinatown {"J. J. Gittes"}
Al Pacino -- The Godfather Part II {"Michael Corleone"}

Yeah no shit...two of the best performances in history there outdone by something I've never even heard of.

Yeah it was a 'lifetime achievement' award for Carney. Similar to 1981 and Henry Fonda for 'On Golden Pond' (although arguably Fonda deserved the statue).

1974: As much as I like Nicholson in Chinatown I would have awarded Hoffman the oscar for his brilliant portrayal of Lenny Bruce. Carney aside you couldn't go wrong with any of those nominees In my book.

My guess: the younger voters at the time split their votes between Nicholson and Pacino, both of whom were relative newcomers to movie stardom at the time (despite the fact that it was Nicholson's 15th year in the business), so the old farts in the Academy, many of whom had been in the industry since the 1920s, and who dominated the voting membership, voted for Carney, a relative veteran (who was only 56 at the time).

Its kind of humorous that the majority of the time, no one actually really wins when they deserve to. All the big names pretty much just have "make up" Oscars for lesser performances to remedy when the Academy screwed them over at some point. It kind of defies the whole point...Although exceptions do obviously exist.

If UP is getting so much praise, then so should WATCHMEN.

If UP is getting so much praise only due to the opening 10 minutes, then the same should be for Watchmen's opening credits.

THE SECRET OF KELLS is the best animated film of the year, ten times better than UP.

On a serious note, THE ROAD got totally dissed.

Up had emotional pull in its first 10 minutes and then again sporadically throughout, the first half is actually a very solid movie. Watchmen had a cool intro that had no emotional pull and the rest of the movie still suffered horribly by comparison.

I haven't seen Kells, but I would prefer Fox win over Up. However, considering only one of the Best Animated is also up for Best Picture, that tells you what will win.

"Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we addressed the changing times for these guys by setting the opening sequence to Dylan's 'The Times They Are A-Changin'?"

**OSCAR NOMINATION**