And the director was very classy in her acceptance speech, thanking our troops. Unusually thoughtful night for the Academy if you ask me. The pictures won that deserved to win. I for one was pleasantly surprised.
No argument from me. Bigelow's acceptance speech was very gracious; humble, even, when you compare it to her ex-husband's speech back in 1999 for Titanic.
No argument from me. Bigelow's acceptance speech was very gracious; humble, even, when you compare it to her ex-husband's speech back in 1999 for Titanic.
She was almost breathless. She grabbed her abdomen a couple of times to catch her breath. I think her dress was too tight, but can you imagine the feeling? Everyone expected "Avatar" to be the big winner, and I'm sure she did as well. She must have been utterly flabbergasted. I cannot imagine the feeling. What a wonderful surprise.
I watched Hurt Locker last night, not something I should watch right before going to bed.
There was a scene where the soldiers stopped to help some fellows in a broke SUV.
They started getting shot by a BG with what appears to be an AK47 using single shots from 850 meters and killing several good guys. Every shot from BG was a kill.
How unbelievable is that???
__________________
Your so ugly, your mama must have been smoking crack, drinking whiskey, and eating paste...
She was almost breathless. She grabbed her abdomen a couple of times to catch her breath. I think her dress was too tight, but can you imagine the feeling? Everyone expected "Avatar" to be the big winner, and I'm sure she did as well. She must have been utterly flabbergasted.
Bigelow shouldn't have been too surprised, Ballbearing. The Hurt Locker picked up a lot of the lesser awards from other industry-related groups. And besides, it had something going for it that Avatar didn't: a story.
I've seen Avatar, in a 3-D theater. From a technical point of view, Cameron and his crew did something amazing, that will make the movie a landmark in movie history. They made the first movie in which 3-D was simply another tool in the director's toolbox. It's the first time 3-D filming has been seamlessly integrated into a movie without it being obtrusive or getting in the way of the story the director is trying to tell. It adds depth and subtlety to a movie in a way I've not seen before. You notice the 3-D effects for the first five minutes or so of the film, but then they simply fade into the woodwork, pulling you into the world of Pandora and enhancing the world of the humans in their enclave there with all its technology in a way I have not often seen. To go off on a tangent, of the comparatively modern movies I have seen in my life, the only ones that pulled me that far in were The Hunt for Red October, Star Wars, and LOTR: The Return of the King; and that had more to do with my personal experiences than with the quality of the film-making. But in the case of Avatar, the 3-D experience is so superior to the preceding 3-D movies from Monsters vs Aliens back to House of Wax, in other words all the 3-D movies that require those horrid red and blue lensed cardboard glasses, that it's like comparing a Brown Bess to a Garand. In movie terms, the technology jump is like the feeling of wonder you got the first time you saw The Wizard of Oz in the scene where Dorothy opens the door in her black and white house and steps out into the Technicolor land of Oz.
Cameron's technology and his use of it was superb. The trouble is, his story had all the substance of cotton candy. Did it have a message? Yes. What was the message? Damned near anything you wanted it to be. Is it a good movie? From a technical viewpoint, absolutely. Is it an instant classic? No. It's Dances with Wolves meets The Last Samurai, with dashes of They Died With their Boots On and The Lion King.
With Avatar, James Cameron showed the potential of what might be possible with his new 3-D process. However, it remains for a director with clearer vision and a real story to tell to show us what can be done with the new 3-D process.
Bigelow shouldn't have been too surprised, Ballbearing. The Hurt Locker picked up a lot of the lesser awards from other industry-related groups. And besides, it had something going for it that Avatar didn't: a story.
I've seen Avatar, in a 3-D theater. From a technical point of view, Cameron and his crew did something amazing, that will make the movie a landmark in movie history. They made the first movie in which 3-D was simply another tool in the director's toolbox. It's the first time 3-D filming has been seamlessly integrated into a movie without it being obtrusive or getting in the way of the story the director is trying to tell. It adds depth and subtlety to a movie in a way I've not seen before. You notice the 3-D effects for the first five minutes or so of the film, but then they simply fade into the woodwork, pulling you into the world of Pandora and enhancing the world of the humans in their enclave there with all its technology in a way I have not often seen. To go off on a tangent, of the comparatively modern movies I have seen in my life, the only ones that pulled me that far in were The Hunt for Red October, Star Wars, and LOTR: The Return of the King; and that had more to do with my personal experiences than with the quality of the film-making. But in the case of Avatar, the 3-D experience is so superior to the preceding 3-D movies from Monsters vs Aliens back to House of Wax, in other words all the 3-D movies that require those horrid red and blue lensed cardboard glasses, that it's like comparing a Brown Bess to a Garand. In movie terms, the technology jump is like the feeling of wonder you got the first time you saw The Wizard of Oz in the scene where Dorothy opens the door in her black and white house and steps out into the Technicolor land of Oz.
Cameron's technology and his use of it was superb. The trouble is, his story had all the substance of cotton candy. Did it have a message? Yes. What was the message? Damned near anything you wanted it to be. Is it a good movie? From a technical viewpoint, absolutely. Is it an instant classic? No. It's Dances with Wolves meets The Last Samurai, with dashes of They Died With their Boots On and The Lion King.
With Avatar, James Cameron showed the potential of what might be possible with his new 3-D process. However, it remains for a director with clearer vision and a real story to tell to show us what can be done with the new 3-D process.
I did not, would not, will not EVER see James Cameron's "Avatar". So I guess I just get to miss out on the 3-D revolution. Although, I do have a hankering to see a certain film coming up shortly in theaters that just so happens to be in 3-D, but that isn't why I want to see it.
thrillbilly, cut Cameron a little slack with this one. Joe and Jane Moviegoer can recognize the following guns two times out of three: Colt Peacemaker, Luger Pistol, US Army .45 (M1911A1), M-16, Tommygun, AK-47, plus maybe the Kentucky Rifle. Film reveiwers aren't much better. They wouldn't know a PSL from an SVD or a Mauser 98K from a Mosin Nagant or a Springfield; they decide what rifle it is based on the uniform of the soldier carrying it. They can't tell the difference between a Winchester 73 and a Winchester 94 thanks to TV Westerns that frequently used the latter to substitute for the former under the theory that they're both lever actions, so who cares?
What amused me is they are 500 years in the future and they're still using 20th Century weapons designs!
I watched Hurt Locker last night, not something I should watch right before going to bed.
There was a scene where the soldiers stopped to help some fellows in a broke SUV.
They started getting shot by a BG with what appears to be an AK47 using single shots from 850 meters and killing several good guys. Every shot from BG was a kill.
How unbelievable is that???
And our .50 gets jammed because of some blood in the magazine.
Ugh.
Pure Hollywood crap, as usual.
When I watch, I watch to laugh.
__________________
"It doesn't matter how small you are if you have faith and a plan." - Some Commie
Although I agree her acceptance was very gracious and she thanked the vets, etc, I really didn't think the movie itself was oscar worthy. I just wasn't impressed. To me it was just another movie attempting to portray us vets as out of control rogues who care nothing for the rules and regulations we actually live with on a daily basis and who willingly, intentionally endanger our fellow troops with our arrogance. I thought it was well filmed, but its not something I'll buy and watch again.
Although I agree her acceptance was very gracious and she thanked the vets, etc, I really didn't think the movie itself was oscar worthy. I just wasn't impressed. To me it was just another movie attempting to portray us vets as out of control rogues who care nothing for the rules and regulations we actually live with on a daily basis and who willingly, intentionally endanger our fellow troops with our arrogance. I thought it was well filmed, but its not something I'll buy and watch again.
thrillbilly, cut Cameron a little slack with this one. Joe and Jane Moviegoer can recognize the following guns two times out of three: Colt Peacemaker, Luger Pistol, US Army .45 (M1911A1), M-16, Tommygun, AK-47, plus maybe the Kentucky Rifle. Film reveiwers aren't much better. They wouldn't know a PSL from an SVD or a Mauser 98K from a Mosin Nagant or a Springfield; they decide what rifle it is based on the uniform of the soldier carrying it. They can't tell the difference between a Winchester 73 and a Winchester 94 thanks to TV Westerns that frequently used the latter to substitute for the former under the theory that they're both lever actions, so who cares?
What amused me is they are 500 years in the future and they're still using 20th Century weapons designs!
I was referring to Hurt Locker.....haven't seen Avatar.
__________________ I'm here for a good time, to h*ll with the red wine, pour me some moonshine!
I was referring to Hurt Locker.....haven't seen Avatar.
My apologies; I misunderstood. But I still stand by my statement that most moviegoers can't tell a musket from a minigun.
It's like one of my favorite gun movies, Kelly's Heroes. It's a military caper flick, if you've never seen it. It was shot in Yugoslavia, because the Yugoslavs had M4 Sherman tanks and American halftracks in their reserve equipment inventory, and because a Yugoslav company had converted a few Soviet T34 tanks to look like German Tiger tanks for a movie made a year or two earlier. (As of today, there is exactly one Tiger tank that can still move; it's in a military vehicle collection in England.)
The weapons used on both sides are absolutely correct - except for one. Private Gutowski, the platoon sniper of Kelly's platoon, is an American GI. So what is he doing with a Mosin Nagant sniper rifle?
The answer of course is practical. The script called for Gutowski to take out a couple of sentries, a machine gun nest and a couple of panzer crewmen from his position in a church bell tower. By rights he should be armed with an M1903A4 Springfield, but the company providing the Thompsons, Lugers, BARs, Schmeissers,.45s, MG42s and M1919A4 Brownings didn't have one. So, on the theory that "Joe and Jane Moviegoer can't tell one gun from another anyhow," they substituted a Mosin Sniper. And for those of us who know guns, we sit there going "WTF?" as the Believability Factor of the film shatters.
