# Hurt Locker > Avatar ?



## troyguitar (Mar 8, 2010)

and Cameron not winning best director?

Lame, Academy. Very lame.


----------



## lobee (Mar 8, 2010)

Personal opinion and bias below:

I didn't think much of Avatar at all. I'm sure if I was younger I would have dug it much much more. It looked cool, flashy, and expensive, but the plot was uninspiring and tired, IMO. It seemed like more of a sensory experience with a storyline added after the fact. The next time I'm in the mood for something like that I'll turn to porn. Happy endings > happily ever after.

It's been a while since I saw The Hurt Locker, but from what I remember it was a very solid film with good acting. It certainly kept my interest longer than Avatar did. 

Don't neg me, bro. It's just like, my opinion, man.


----------



## phaeded0ut (Mar 8, 2010)

It seemed like the Academy wanted to make statements, this year. "The Hurt Locker" gave a woman the first time winner as a Director. I also think that there were a few other political reasons why that film won so many awards. Sound Editing should have gone to Avatar, and I was little disappointed in the Visual Effects/Costuming winners, there were others who were a little more deserving, in my opinion. 

Felt that this award ceremony had a bit more fluff to it than I'd have liked, but oh well.

Congrats to the nominees and the winners! May they exceed themselves for their next projects.


----------



## lobee (Mar 8, 2010)

^Yeah I didn't actually watch the awards and I hate the politics that go along with it--and politics in general--I just watch the movies and let them speak for themselves as they find their way into my psyche.


----------



## troyguitar (Mar 8, 2010)

I thought Hurt Locker and The Messenger were the most overrated movies of the year. Then again, I don't give a shit about the Iraq war  Seems like a bunch of politics to me: vote for the woman director, not the badass guy who wrote _and_ directed a huge epic that was the most successful film of all time. Then vote for the Iraq movie, because if you don't then you're unAmerican


----------



## ivancic1al (Mar 8, 2010)

part of the reason avatar was the most successful film of all time was due to the increased ticket pricing brought on because of the 3D glasses and such. also, you have to keep in mind inflation. it seems that each time there is a blockbuster movie, it becomes the most successful of all time. if you look into how that success is measured, avatar doesn't quite cut it. not to sound like i didn't enjoy avatar, it was a very compelling movie VISUALLY, and i think that's why it got to be lauded as the best movie ever...etc. but imo, films have to have more than just good looking visuals, and personally, copying Pocahontas and adding aleins and more guns doesn't make a movie the best of all time. avatar was very, very good, but highly overrated...i think that's why i didn't win.



to be fair, i see your point about hurt locker. trying to bolster patriotism/vote for the first woman etc. that's why i really don't like the Oscars, too much of Hollywood tooting it's own horn....


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Mar 8, 2010)

I didn't see Avatar but I saw Hurt Locker, and while HL was good, it wasn't _that_ memorable and awesome.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 8, 2010)

ivancic1al said:


> part of the reason avatar was the most successful film of all time was due to the increased ticket pricing brought on because of the 3D glasses and such. also, you have to keep in mind inflation. it seems that each time there is a blockbuster movie, it becomes the most successful of all time. if you look into how that success is measured, avatar doesn't quite cut it. not to sound like i didn't enjoy avatar, it was a very compelling movie VISUALLY, and i think that's why it got to be lauded as the best movie ever...etc. but imo, films have to have more than just good looking visuals, and personally, copying Pocahontas and adding aleins and more guns doesn't make a movie the best of all time. avatar was very, very good, but highly overrated...i think that's why i didn't win.
> 
> 
> 
> to be fair, i see your point about hurt locker. trying to bolster patriotism/vote for the first woman etc. that's why *i really don't like the Oscars, too much of Hollywood tooting it's own horn*....



Just about sums up my sentiments perfectly, especially what's in bold.


----------



## BigBaldIan (Mar 8, 2010)

phaeded0ut said:


> It seemed like the Academy wanted to make statements, this year. "The Hurt Locker" gave a woman the first time winner as a Director. I also think that there were a few other political reasons why that film won so many awards. Sound Editing should have gone to Avatar, and I was little disappointed in the Visual Effects/Costuming winners, there were others who were a little more deserving, in my opinion.
> 
> Felt that this award ceremony had a bit more fluff to it than I'd have liked, but oh well.
> 
> Congrats to the nominees and the winners! May they exceed themselves for their next projects.


 
 Also take into account the Academy's general snootiness towards anything in the sci-fi/fantasy genre (it took until RotK for Jackson to get a clean sweep).


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Mar 8, 2010)

5 Reasons The Oscars Matter Even Less Than You Thought | Cracked.com

...but that was to be expected.


----------



## Demiurge (Mar 8, 2010)

At the The Dude won an Oscar...


----------



## playstopause (Mar 8, 2010)

troyguitar said:


> and Cameron not winning best director?
> 
> Lame, Academy. Very lame.



I fail to see how this is lame. Avatar is very ordinary if you get past the visual innovation. Also, a film's popularity is not a criteria.


----------



## liquidcow (Mar 8, 2010)

Bloody_Inferno said:


> 5 Reasons The Oscars Matter Even Less Than You Thought | Cracked.com
> 
> ...but that was to be expected.



The trouble with this article is that it seems to be expect that people at the time a film had just come out would realise its historical importance, which is impossible. All the stuff about 'the most influential movie of the last 25 years', or movies being put into the National Film Registry, is stuff no-one could have known at the time. Ok some of the decisions still seem a bit weird, but this is ultimately the reason I pay no heed to awards. Every article I've ever read criticizing the Oscars (or other awards for that matter) basically consists of 'this film won and that film didn't, wah'.

I'm also quite troubled by the sexism in the insinuation that Hurt Locker getting Best Director was in some way related to the director being a woman. I mean, it couldn't possibly be because it was a better film could it?


----------



## Elysian (Mar 8, 2010)

Avatar was a good movie, I really enjoyed it, but it got the award it deserved. The Hurt Locker was definitely a better movie.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 8, 2010)

Elysian said:


> Avatar was a good movie, I really enjoyed it, but it got the award it deserved. The Hurt Locker was definitely a better movie.



This.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 8, 2010)

I haven't seen Avata yet, but I thought The Hurt Locker was brilliant and the people who worked on that deserve all the awards they can get.


----------



## troyguitar (Mar 8, 2010)

liquidcow said:


> I'm also quite troubled by the sexism in the insinuation that Hurt Locker getting Best Director was in some way related to the director being a woman. I mean, it couldn't possibly be because it was a better film could it?



I'm no film director, but I can't even begin to imagine how Cameron didn't win Best Director. He had the biggest and toughest job by far and executed it perfectly. All of the people who did win awards from Avatar were praising the guy like he was a fucking god in their acceptance speeches. He had people going out and seeing his film 5+ times at higher prices than any other movie.

Compare that to the chick: all she had to do is not fuck it up horribly, and she had a hit movie on her hands. OMG poor poor VOLUNTEER soldiers getting blown up in the sand, sob sob sob. Somebody give her a medal!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 8, 2010)

For Blockbusters Cameron is the daddy. Does he work hard? Probably yes. Is he a perfectionist? Probably yes. 

However, Cameron is about the spectacle, Bigelow is about the intelligence.


----------



## liquidcow (Mar 8, 2010)

troyguitar said:


> I'm no film director, but I can't even begin to imagine how Cameron didn't win Best Director. He had the biggest and toughest job by far and executed it perfectly. All of the people who did win awards from Avatar were praising the guy like he was a fucking god in their acceptance speeches. He had people going out and seeing his film 5+ times at higher prices than any other movie.
> 
> Compare that to the chick: all she had to do is not fuck it up horribly, and she had a hit movie on her hands. OMG poor poor VOLUNTEER soldiers getting blown up in the sand, sob sob sob. Somebody give her a medal!



For what it's worth you could easily flip that argument on its head and say that all Cameron had to do was throw millions of dollars at the film to create the 'groundbreaking' special effects. We all know the actual screenplay wasn't anything to write home about, the buzz came from the technological innovations and the amount of hype the film received in the press. Of course people are going to throw praise at him if they've just been given an award, that's Hollywood.

For a war film, there's already plenty of those out there, and many of them are pretty dull, so to make one that stands out (especially on such a low budget) you've got to do something pretty special. Also bear in mind that Hurt Locker does actually seem to have a higher consensus of being considered a good film, if you check Rotten Tomatoes for example.

I think it's pretty clear that on the whole, the two films are aimed at very different demographics, so people who liked one are most likely not going to like the other. Fans of escapist, fantasy action-adventure films like Avatar are likely to to be keen on a film like Hurt Locker which has pretty much the opposite intentions, and vice versa. It's kind of why award ceremonies are irrelevant, there is no Best Picture.

But in any case, I was taking issue with the idea that it was to do with her being a woman. Complete sexist nonsense.


----------



## MFB (Mar 8, 2010)

Troy, this shit boils down to one thing : film-viewers vs. movie-goers.

Film-viewers are in it for the deeper experience and want substance versus flash. Avatar was all about flash or else they would've made it 10-15 years ago when technology wasn't up to par. Are there underlying messages? Yes. 

But wasn't the whole point of the marketing to promote this visual grandeur experience and about going to a new world? Yes. 

Any common person who didn't see Avatar can get the jist of it from the previews - guy travels to new world under part of the Avatar program and is supposed to gain their trust, instead becomes one of them and wants to save them and must fight what he used to be. That right there is movie-goer - aka big summer Blockbuster.

The Hurt Locker was a far more emotional movie and I say this not as someone who has a family member serving a 2nd term in Iraq, but as someone who LOVES movies when they have great depth and REAL characters. Ones who you can see the emotion in their eyes without them even saying a word to you.

I felt the Academy did the right thing


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Mar 8, 2010)

i can't even begin to describe how screwed up of a movie Hurt Locker was. getting past the massive plot hole, the bad pacing of the film and the overall lackluster performance of all but two of the actors. all you have is a slow film where literally nothing happens. it was supposed to be the tense and gritty look at modern war, but that ended up only being true for the first five minutes. 

all bigalow did was rehash a theme of her prior most known film Point Break. the main character was essentially the same character patrick swayze played, except make him the "protagonist" and in the army. addicted to the thrill of the fight? check. grossly irrational and a danger to all around him? check. 

it wasn't sexism that won her the awards, it was the fact that this film echoed the tormented soldier theme of all Vietnam movies past (minus We Were Soldiers). the academy wanted their Full Metal Jacket about Iraq. <------ btw Time magazine was responsible for that comparison. 

did i want Avatar to win? no. i was actually pulling for an underdog Best Picture win by Up, as i thought that was a far superior film to the two film in the thread title


----------



## MFB (Mar 8, 2010)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> i can't even begin to describe how screwed up of a movie Hurt Locker was. getting past the massive plot hole, the bad pacing of the film and the overall lackluster performance of all but two of the actors. all you have is a slow film where literally nothing happens. it was supposed to be the tense and gritty look at modern war, but that ended up only being true for the first five minutes.
> 
> all bigalow did was rehash a theme of her prior most known film Point Break. the main character was essentially the same character patrick swayze played, except make him the "protagonist" and in the army. addicted to the thrill of the fight? check. grossly irrational and a danger to all around him? check.
> 
> ...



Explain the 'massive plot hole' cause I can't seem to recall it since I saw the film ~4-5 months ago

Bad pacing? War isn't all action, all the time. There's often calm times where very little happens. Revolutionary I know, but it _does_ happen. As for the 'gritty look at war', well that's subjective. Gritty can be what happens to the country itself, the economy of the country, the effect on its citizens or the soldiers itself. There's X amount of things you could say it is. This film chose to show the 'gritty look at war' by showing the effect it's had on 3 particular soldiers.

Re-hashing Patrick Swayze character? Character rehashes happen all the time, especially in action movies (see the film careers of Arnold & Sylvester) but I wouldn't say this was a rehash at all. There ARE adrenaline junkies out there and such and it's common. Hell, I consider myself to be one and I'll hit any and all rollercoasters I can when I go to an amusement park. They even have SHOWS dedicated to finding shit for adrenaline junkies. It's an addiction and it's all personality based. He just happen to find his addiction in war and bomb disabling.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 8, 2010)

I just have to say, it's gotta sting a little to lose an Oscar to your ex-wife.


----------



## troyguitar (Mar 8, 2010)

synrgy said:


> I just have to say, it's gotta sting a little to lose an Oscar to your ex-wife.



Truth - not one but two.

I was really expecting them to split Director and Picture (or Precious or Blind Side to get Picture - they would have been my picks for "film" vs Avatar for "movie"). That she got both of them was the WTF moment that spurred the creation of this thread.

I also found it hilarious that every time Precious was mentioned they spouted out the whole title "Precious based on the novel Push by Sapphire" and zoomed in cameras on black actors in the crowd, half of which had nothing to do with the film like Morgan Freeman and Samuel L Jackson.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Mar 8, 2010)

MFB said:


> Explain the 'massive plot hole' cause I can't seem to recall it since I saw the film ~4-5 months ago
> 
> Bad pacing? War isn't all action, all the time. There's often calm times where very little happens. Revolutionary I know, but it _does_ happen. As for the 'gritty look at war', well that's subjective. Gritty can be what happens to the country itself, the economy of the country, the effect on its citizens or the soldiers itself. There's X amount of things you could say it is. This film chose to show the 'gritty look at war' by showing the effect it's had on 3 particular soldiers.
> 
> Re-hashing Patrick Swayze character? Character rehashes happen all the time, especially in action movies (see the film careers of Arnold & Sylvester) but I wouldn't say this was a rehash at all. There ARE adrenaline junkies out there and such and it's common. Hell, I consider myself to be one and I'll hit any and all rollercoasters I can when I go to an amusement park. They even have SHOWS dedicated to finding shit for adrenaline junkies. It's an addiction and it's all personality based. He just happen to find his addiction in war and bomb disabling.



the massive plot hole is Sergeant Sanborn. after any kind of mission soldiers debrief. all 3 would have been questioned by superior officers and reports would have been made. the character of Sanborn is very by-the-book i.e. any time he made a protest against James for being reckless *BOOM* official protest. in fact both Eldridge and Sanborn feel unsafe around James. both would have made an official complaint about him and ta-da james is relieved of his command. the entire movie depends on the viewer not questioning why James is never charged with anything. when he sneaks off base for example he gets away from being reported by an entire night watch by saying he was with prostitutes????? too tough a nut to swallow. the same with sequence where Eldridge is captured, James is still on active duty after that whole scene. again, you can't cover that up its too big. James being allowed on active duty is the result of Sanborn and Eldridge conflicting with the core of their characters. Eldridge would've protested out of fear for his own life. Sanborn would've reported out of is by-the-book nature. huge plot hole throughout. 

pacing. i dont mean action entirely when i say this. a story is like an essay in the sense you dont make your conclusion until the end of the work. you got your intro which is the quote at the beginning, you have your supporting evidence, and then the conclusion. where film differs is in the supporting evidence, a film maker vaguely paints it in order for the viewer to a) not jump to the directors conclusion b) not to bore the audience with blatantly obvious examples. by following this the conclusion (finale) holds more weight and has more impact. not all films are made this way but HL is. however Bigalow's "thesis" is shown just past the 2nd half of the movie (James's box). leaving the viewer to watch close to an hour of redundant messages, beating the viewer like a dead horse with the now obvious addicted message and offering no new insight into the characters until the very end when its revealed that: Sanborn wants a family.... then Bigalow tries to wrap up her work by traditionally re-stating her thesis from the beginning of the movie (the quote). however by this time we already know he doesn't care for family, friends or anything but the thrill of his job (he says it back in the barracks in the middle of the movie). which left me with a "thats it??" feeling. thats all im left with? characters which never develop beyond the middle mark of the film? She doesn't build in the slow parts and there are far too many scenes where nothing of note really happens to build them up or break them down. she played her hand way too soon in the movie and left me very disappointed (even more so because i paid $14 to see this it)


----------



## liquidcow (Mar 8, 2010)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> it wasn't sexism that won her the awards, it was the fact that this film echoed the tormented soldier theme of all Vietnam movies past



Don't know if this refers to my comments or not, but I wasn't saying it was sexism that won her the award. As one person put it, if it was, they wouldn't have waited 82 years. She won the award, I believe, because she made the better film, no question about that. What I was saying was that people assuming that it was because she's a woman were being sexist.

As for 'Nothing happened'... sorry, must have been watching a different film, I remember a lot happening.


----------



## Variant (Mar 9, 2010)

*cough... District 9... cough...*


----------



## Karl Hungus (Mar 9, 2010)

Gotta say I'm kinda surprised by this thread. Kathryn Bigelow only won because she was a woman? I don't think that was the case at all. She's had a few very good films under her belt already, Near Dark was probably the best vampire film of the 80's, and Strange Days was brilliant (written by James Cameron as well, probably his best writing to date).

Whatever about the obvious message of the Hurt Locker, you could easily say the same about Avatar, as it had the most blatant and forced allegories I've seen in a sci-fi/fantasy film, it was Dances with Wolves in space and that already won best picture in 1990, why should the same story win in 2010? Ok, that's quite a glib comment and I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar for what it was, but it was extremely unoriginal and neither the story or characters grabbed me at all.

I felt that The Hurt Locker was just a far better film, I own it on Bluray, I've watched it twice so far, and I'll definitely be watching it again. Avatar was great to see as far as a spectacle goes, however, I don't think I'll be picking it up on Bluray. I'd also say that District 9 was a far better film than Avatar as well.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 9, 2010)

Karl/anyone - have you seen The Weight of Water?

Top film, I imagine those who enjoyed The Hurt Locker would it enjoy it. It's a very different subject matter but approached in the same way as it was also directed by Kathryn Bigelow.


----------



## Esp Griffyn (Mar 9, 2010)

Variant said:


> *cough... District 9... cough...*



Better film than anything mentioned in this thread so far.


----------



## MFB (Mar 9, 2010)

I didn't really enjoy District 9  I wanted to really bad cause I can tell how well done it was and the people put a lot of work into it, but overall something just didn't sit with me


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 9, 2010)

MFB said:


> I didn't really enjoy District 9  I wanted to really bad cause I can tell how well done it was and the people put a lot of work into it, but overall something just didn't sit with me



Same here. The first act was really good but the second and third acts were very poor IMO.


----------



## Varcolac (Mar 9, 2010)

Variant said:


> *cough... District 9... cough...*



Fookin' prawns. Better than Avatar hands down, haven't seen Hurt Locker.


----------



## sakeido (Mar 9, 2010)

ivancic1al said:


> part of the reason avatar was the most successful film of all time was due to the increased ticket pricing brought on because of the 3D glasses and such. also, you have to keep in mind inflation. it seems that each time there is a blockbuster movie, it becomes the most successful of all time.



Adjusted for inflation Avatar is the #1 grossing movie of all time worldwide and #14 domestically. 

I wanted Avatar to win even though it wasn't really Best Picture material. Very engrossing experience and it was a visual treat but the dialog and writing was not up to par.. but Hurt Locker. No fucking way. Two years in a row now a *massively* overrated movie has won Best Pic.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 9, 2010)

sakeido said:


> Two years in a row now a *massively* overrated movie has won Best Pic.



I beg to differ; *Three* years in a row. No Country was garbage. I mean, it was a halfway decent flick, but Best Picture? Fuck that noise. The Academy is balls. 

*edit* in fact, let's take it further: With the exception of The Departed, I'd say every pick from 2003 and on has been a "REALLY?!" pick. I'm not saying other movies nominated should have won, neccessarily, but I think all the winners over those years have been sub-par.


----------



## Karl Hungus (Mar 9, 2010)

I'd agree with Slumdog being very overrated, but No Country For Old Men? I disagree furiously! I count it as one of the very finest American films of the 2000's, an absolute masterpiece without compare.


----------



## jymellis (Mar 9, 2010)

i LOVE district 9. one of the only movies that made me think about the movie for days after i saw it! as for the academy awards. i quit watching when gwars phallus in wonderland didnt win


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 9, 2010)

I think the thing about NCFOM is you either got it or you didn't. I didn't get it and as a result I walked away from the film with very little impression from it.


----------



## sakeido (Mar 9, 2010)

Karl Hungus said:


> I'd agree with Slumdog being very overrated, but No Country For Old Men? I disagree furiously! I count it as one of the very finest American films of the 2000's, an absolute masterpiece without compare.



+1 billion 
One of the greatest bad guys of all time, who also happens to be played by the perfect actor for the part.. who plays the part perfectly. One of the best performances I've seen in recent memory. Anton Chigurh (sp?) on his own is enough to win a Best Picture.


----------



## pink freud (Mar 9, 2010)

synrgy said:


> I just have to say, it's gotta sting a little to lose an Oscar to your ex-wife.



Not when you make as much $$$ as Cameron does. A temporary sting at best.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 9, 2010)

sakeido said:


> +1 billion
> One of the greatest bad guys of all time, who also happens to be played by the perfect actor for the part.. who plays the part perfectly. One of the best performances I've seen in recent memory. Anton Chigurh (sp?) on his own is enough to win a Best Picture.



It doesn't take much talent to play a ZERO dimensional character. What do we know about him? Absolutely dick, that's what. He likes coin tosses; That's tough to play? 

Sorry, I thought the film was cool in that it was different -- not the typical Hollywood film -- but that's where it's pros ended for me. The rest was all cons. Terribly slow pacing, sub-par acting from some otherwise GREAT actors, and one of the lamest on screen endings I can remember seeing.

That's all my elaborated OPINION. I'm not saying anyone should agree with me.


----------



## Sepultorture (Mar 9, 2010)

awards mean nothing, the turn out of masses of people is all the award that Avatar needs


----------



## sakeido (Mar 9, 2010)

synrgy said:


> It doesn't take much talent to play a ZERO dimensional character. What do we know about him? Absolutely dick, that's what. He likes coin tosses; That's tough to play?
> 
> Sorry, I thought the film was cool in that it was different -- not the typical Hollywood film -- but that's where it's pros ended for me. The rest was all cons. Terribly slow pacing, sub-par acting from some otherwise GREAT actors, and one of the lamest on screen endings I can remember seeing.
> 
> That's all my elaborated OPINION. I'm not saying anyone should agree with me.



Yes, because I absolutely do not agree with you. Not in the slightest. The guy was fucking terrifying. He literally haunted my nightmares for a couple weeks afterwards. And I really disagree about the acting thing.. Brolin and Jones were both awesome in that movie. Javier Bardem of course overshadowed both of them, but that _was_ one of the best performances ever so its only natural.

And the ending... if you didn't get it, you missed the point of the whole movie, namely how Tommy Lee Jones' character was the focus of the entire flick.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 9, 2010)

sakeido said:


> And the ending... if you didn't get it, you missed the point of the whole movie, namely how Tommy Lee Jones' character was the focus of the entire flick.



I'm guessing this is what I missed out on. I need to watch that film again.


----------



## Xaios (Mar 9, 2010)

troyguitar said:


> all she had to do is not fuck it up horribly, and she had a hit movie on her hands.



You do know that The Hurt Locker is the LOWEST grossing Best Picture winner OF ALL TIME, right?



troyguitar said:


> ...the most successful film of all time.



Uh-huh, and how do we feel about high selling pop singers being called the "best musicians of all-time?" Popularity is not a particularly good measurement of quality.

Personally, I genuinely thought The Hurt Locker is a MUCH better film than Avatar. That doesn't dismiss the academy of other grievances, such as the fact that Star Trek didn't even get nominated and District 9 was a better movie than both THL and Avatar. But in pure comparison between Avatar and The Hurt Locker, the latter wins hands down.


----------



## Karl Hungus (Mar 9, 2010)

sakeido said:


> And the ending... if you didn't get it, you missed the point of the whole movie, namely how Tommy Lee Jones' character was the focus of the entire flick.



This is it really. I found that people who didn't like it completely ignored Tommy Lee Jones' character Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, and focused purely on the cat-and-mouse between the Brolin and Bardem characters, then felt short-changed when that plot-line came to it's conclusion.

If you want to break it down further, the whole character of Anton Chigurh, the way he appears in the film is Sheriff Bell's perception of him, he never encounters Chigurh in the film, they never cross paths, yet he is the one telling the story. We hear about how Bell doesn't understand the violence in the world any more, so Chigurh appears as a caricature, a force of nature who flips a coin to decide his actions, not a real person. He represents everything Bell thinks is wrong with the world, the seemingly random, unpredictable and unprovoked violence that he cannot get his head around.

Chigurh is rather like Frank Booth in Blue Velvet in that sense, and almost as terrifying. Like in No Country For Old Men, Frank is a caricature rather than a fully rounded character, he's someone that the young Jeffrey Beaumont encounters and just cannot understand. The line that really says this for me is when Jeffrey asks "Why are there people like Frank in the world?" So what we the audience are seeing is not a full person, but another person's perception of them. So Frank is someone extremely unpredictable, a shockingly violent person, and Jeffrey can't understand him, so he's only shown to us from this angle. 







You could say that both Anton and Frank are 2 dimensional characters, but that's really missing the point. What's significant is what they represent, how they fit into the story, and what they say about the character's whose eyes we see them through. It's an absolutely magnificent way of telling a story.

Also consider that a sense of mystery is a dimension in itself. Sometimes a character is greater the less that's explained about them. Hannibal Lecter is one of the best examples. As he appeared in Silence Of The Lambs, we really don't get much of an insight into him at all, and he's quite a scary character because of it. As more backstory was added, it just began to chip away at the mystery of the character, and just really decreased his effectiveness. Likewise, any attempt to explain anything about Anton Chigurh would just have diminished a terrific character. 

By the way, I do realise that I'm talking about the relevance of characters in Coen Brothers and David Lynch films in a thread where people are saying "Yay, Avatar!" and I can see how can look. 



Xaios said:


> Uh-huh, and how do we feel about high selling pop singers being called the "best musicians of all-time?" Popularity is not a particularly good measurement of quality.



This right here, I thoroughly agree with. Batman & Robin made substantially more money at the box office than L.A. Confidential did, and the same year that Memento was released, Nutty Professor 2 raked in retarded amounts of money. Success is definitely not a measurement of quality.


----------



## Xaios (Mar 9, 2010)

^ rep.


----------



## troyguitar (Mar 9, 2010)

Eh. Some of us (most of us by the numbers) are just looking for entertainment at the movies.

If I wanted something intellectual I would read a book or, better yet, go chat with some smart people.


----------



## Karl Hungus (Mar 9, 2010)

troyguitar said:


> Eh. Some of us (most of us by the numbers) are just looking for entertainment at the movies.
> 
> If I wanted something intellectual I would read a book or, better yet, go chat with some smart people.



I don't get that attitude. Perhaps some of the most intellectual films I've seen have also been the most entertaining and enjoyable. Is there some rule that says an 'entertaining' film has to have a poor plot and characters, or that a film with depth of plot and well written characters has to be boring? I don't see that entertainment value and intelligence in a film have to be at odds with each other. Memento was intellectual. It was also far more entertaining than any blockbuster released that year.

Why the anti-intellectualism when it comes to film? I don't get it.


----------



## troyguitar (Mar 9, 2010)

They don't have to be at odds but I can't think of any examples that I found both intellectual and entertaining. The closest I can think of would be something like A Beautiful Mind.

Most "smart" movies I've found to be downers (Requiem for a Dream, anyone?), boring, or just plain too hard to follow.

I also don't think that movies like Avatar are as bad as snobs make them out to be. So the story isn't the most original thing in the world - who fucking cares? The thing was too big to have a super intricate plot with a pile of deep characters. That would just have made it 4+ hours long and harder to follow.

edit: Keep in mind you're talking with someone whose favorite movies include Top Gun, Wayne's World, Blues Brothers, Happy Gilmore, and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure...


----------



## synrgy (Mar 9, 2010)

Karl Hungus said:


> I don't get that attitude. Perhaps some of the most intellectual films I've seen have also been the most entertaining and enjoyable. Is there some rule that says an 'entertaining' film has to have a poor plot and characters, or that a film with depth of plot and well written characters has to be boring? I don't see that entertainment value and intelligence in a film have to be at odds with each other. Memento was intellectual. It was also far more entertaining than any blockbuster released that year.
> 
> Why the anti-intellectualism when it comes to film? I don't get it.


 

I like both, personally. In the case of No Country, I thought the book was great. I just thought the movie really failed to live up to it. My best guess is all the footage I felt was missing does exist, but the editor and director chose to go the way they went during post production.

I can only speak for myself, but I like cerebral movies and popcorn flicks equally, for completely different reasons. I just had an overwhelming feeling of 'uh.. alright..' when I left the theater after No Country. 

As for films generally, I typically go to the theater more for popcorn flicks, and watch non-blockbuster stuff at home. I just feel that generally, blockbuster type movies are only going to work on the big screen, if they're going to work at all. I thought GI Joe was pretty rad in the theater, but I have no compulsion to go buy the DVD. I love dialog-heavy stuff like HurlyBurly and I <3 Huckabees, but I likely wouldn't go to see either one in the theater since the larger screen and surround sound aren't really taken advantage of. I go to the theater for 'splosions, effects, suspense, action, horror, etc. It's a "buy the ticket, take the ride" kind of a thing. That doesn't mean I don't love Akira Kurosawa's work as much as the next guy.

Films, like any other type of art or fictional media, are completely subjective. Show 5 people the same film, and you'll get 5 different interpretations of what was seen. So far as I'm aware, that's exactly what happens to movies; they get filmed and edited, then shown to a test audience, then re-edited, tested again, re-edited, rinse repeat until the test audiences largely identify with the film being presented to them. It's not pretty if you're the director, but it sure does help boost the box office numbers. (*sigh*)

I do get what you guys are driving at though, in terms of the masses. In a lot of cases, that's exactly what it boils down to: Mass appeal. People want to see movies that they can talk to other people about, especially people they work with, since in a lot of jobs you can't have 'real' conversations at work and small talk becomes the name of the game. Call it 'the water cooler angle'.


----------



## Karl Hungus (Mar 12, 2010)

troyguitar said:


> I also don't think that movies like Avatar are as bad as snobs make them out to be. So the story isn't the most original thing in the world - who fucking cares? The thing was too big to have a super intricate plot with a pile of deep characters. That would just have made it 4+ hours long and harder to follow.



You don't think it matters if a story is unoriginal? I think it matters quite a bit, especially when you've got highly unoriginal characters and dialogue dominating the film as well. As a story, it's something that I think we've all seen in one form or another over the years. At it's core, it's the same plot as Dune, Dances With Wolves and The Last Samurai, and it gets boring. There's very little to set it aside from those films because the characters are such bland archetypes.

Take for example Stephen Lang's character, the bad ass colonel who gives the bad ass speech introducing everyone to the world of Pandora and how everything can kill you dead. It's pretty much the exact cliche of a tough talking military type that had been perfected by R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, and pretty much ever line Stephen Lang has is just cliche after cliche; "You're not in Kansas anymore." Now, I'm not saying they should have added in anything extra to the film to pad out this or any other character, because it wouldn't work, you'd have to re-write them from scratch. All the characters are walking cliches, from Sam Worthington's worn down hero who finds peace with a different culture (Dances with Wolves/Last Samurai), to even the smaller characters, like Giovanni Ribisi's uncaring businessman, or the na'vi guy who hates Sam Worthington's character at first and gives him a hard time but later comes to respect him and fight alongside him (just like the Hiroyuki Sanada character in The Last Samurai).

And the real kicker is that James Cameron is capable of so much better than this. He's proved it plenty of times before, but seems to have focused completely on the visual aspects of the film while populating it with one-note cardboard cut-out characters.

Now don't get me wrong, I really did like Avatar. It was absolutely spectacular and a complete visual treat. I really, really enjoyed myself watching it. But it's not an amazing film by any stretch, and I think that for me to consider a film to truly great, it has to work on more than just one level. It doesn't need to be an intellectual masterpiece, but good writing, plot, characters, original ideas and good acting are all important to me. Visually, Avatar is wonderful, but it just doesn't succeed past that. 



troyguitar said:


> edit: Keep in mind you're talking with someone whose favorite movies include Top Gun, Wayne's World, Blues Brothers, Happy Gilmore, and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure...



You see, Wayne's World and the Blues Brothers are two of the very best comedy films out there, nothing wrong with them at all.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a little more depth to your films either. Or to put it another way, I'm a huge fan of whiskey, and I like my whiskey with depth, character and flavor, straight up. But some people just like a cheap whiskey with a dash of coke and that's fine too, sometimes I just like that as well. (Am I calling Avatar a cheap whiskey with a dash of coke (cgi)? Yeah, kinda.  ) A good film, I just want to savor and really enjoy it, taste all that I can.

What a love about a film with real depth is that I can come back to it again and pick up on things I didn't see the first time, notice details that I missed, or explore a character further. Now, we've all seen Full Metal Jacket, haven't we? I don't know how many times I've seen that film before, but only recently did I start looking at it in another way.


Spoiler



Private Pyle and Animal Mother are the same character. Try watching it again with that in mind, and it's like watching a whole new film. Pyle's death is metaphorical, the person he was is dead and Animal Mother is Pyle born again hard, now a completely different person.


 


Anyway, you want to talk about an Oscar snub... How Sam Rockwell wasn't even nominated for best actor for his performance in Moon is beyond me. He was staggeringly good.


----------



## playstopause (Mar 12, 2010)

^


----------



## sakeido (Mar 12, 2010)

Moon was a fantastic movie.. until the ending


----------



## playstopause (Mar 12, 2010)

What was wrong with the ending? I thought it was pretty good.


----------

