POLL: Avatar or The Hurt Locker?

hemlock wrote:Hurt Locker. I haven't even seen Avatar. Hurt Locker is epic though, and it's nice to see a smaller film beat out the big budget epic for awards such as these.

I haven't seen it yet and It's probably a great movie, but with Oscars sometimes, the best movie category is biased with current political situations. Or may be it's part of the criterias, I don't know.
Given the USA's current state in Mid-east, those kind of movies probably have a few advantages over movies like Inglorious basterds or Precious, who would have probably won the Best movie category if we were in the 80's.
I thought last year the Oscars were great and very untraditionnal, but this year they went back to the "Eye-opener" movies and let the most entertaining and original ones away.

I think Hurt Locker would have won it any time, anywhere.

SpezDispenser wrote:I think Hurt Locker would have won it any time, anywhere.

I do to. The more I think about it, the more I believe it was absolutely the right choice.

Shosanna was awesome in that movie. Inglorious Basterds surprised me as to how amazingly well it was directed. Great acting too. That guy deserved the oscar

SpezDispenser wrote:She had a real quiet cool to her. That's a ridiculously underrated film (Basterds that is). It's a real tip of the hat to QT that he came back after Kill Bill and produced another killer film.

He's just awesome, the best I would suggest.

The best perhaps at what he does, Tarantino-esque films aren't exactly all over the place. I'd put him in with a guy like Robert Rodriguez and David Fincher, but overall, he's not even close, in my opinion, to being the best director going. He's shown practically zero range. Spielberg has done practically every genre out there. There's also a guy named Scorsese, who's head and shoulders above QT, and has shown quite a bit more range.

I do love QT though, and would love to see what he could do in a straight up drama.

SensGirl11 wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I think Hurt Locker would have won it any time, anywhere.

I do to. The more I think about it, the more I believe it was absolutely the right choice.

I agree. There have been some real head scratchers at the Oscars though (Ed Norton getting beat for Best Actor in American History X by Roberto Benigni comes to mind).

Michallica wrote:Shosanna was awesome in that movie. Inglorious Basterds surprised me as to how amazingly well it was directed. Great acting too. That guy deserved the oscar

Yeah, he deserved the Oscar in 1994 when he was beaten by Robert Zemekis for directing and Best Picture - which was so clearly ridiculous it sent shockwaves through the Academy. It's not that Forest Gump was bad, it was actually incredible, it's that Pulp Fiction changed cinema forever, there's no turning back. It's cutting edge directing, acting etc. are what the celebration of movies are all about - and yet it lost. That pissed me off, I remember it well, I was pissed for a while.

This was his 2nd chance and he didn't have a prayer this year. Not against James Cameron and Kat Bigelow.

hemlock wrote:

SensGirl11 wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I think Hurt Locker would have won it any time, anywhere.

I do to. The more I think about it, the more I believe it was absolutely the right choice.

I agree. There have been some real head scratchers at the Oscars though (Ed Norton getting beat for Best Actor in American History X by Roberto Benigni comes to mind).

I believe Norton won that Oscar Hem. I think you might be mistaken.

EDIT: The one that comes to mind was Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. Like...I loved Shakespeare in Love, but come on.

hemlock wrote:The best perhaps at what he does, Tarantino-esque films aren't exactly all over the place. I'd put him in with a guy like Robert Rodriguez and David Fincher, but overall, he's not even close, in my opinion, to being the best director going. He's shown practically zero range. Spielberg has done practically every genre out there. There's also a guy named Scorsese, who's head and shoulders above QT, and has shown quite a bit more range.

I do love QT though, and would love to see what he could do in a straight up drama.

I would call Jackie Brown a drama and even Inglorious is more drama than anything else. Maybe a thriller? Hard to classify, the thing about him is that he combines elements from comedies, drama, thriller, action. It's quite a blend.

SpezDispenser wrote:

hemlock wrote:

SensGirl11 wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I think Hurt Locker would have won it any time, anywhere.

I do to. The more I think about it, the more I believe it was absolutely the right choice.

I agree. There have been some real head scratchers at the Oscars though (Ed Norton getting beat for Best Actor in American History X by Roberto Benigni comes to mind).

I believe Norton won that Oscar Hem. I think you might be mistaken.

EDIT: The one that comes to mind was Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. Like...I loved Shakespeare in Love, but come on.

No, he didn't. I guarentee it. Yeah, that's another mind boggling one.

EDIT: http://www.filmsite.org/aa98.html

Benigni won for Life is Beautiful over Tom Hanks (the aformentioned Saving Private Ryan), Ian McKellen, Nick Nolte, and Ed Norton.

No offense but putting QT in the same category as Rodriguez, I'd have to strongly disagree. Rodriguez is not a very good director, and most of his movies are blockbuster-ish.
Also, Spielberg and Scorcese are what 30 years older? (ok may be not). They certainly are more experienced but more talented, I don't think.
I love all of QT's movies, I think they are original and daring. Spielberg, yeah he has like 3 or 4 of my all time favourites, but along with 10+ stinkers (War of the worlds, seriously?) Scorcese is one of the best, no quesiton but again, most of them also look the same.
I don't know if you've watched Bonus contents in Tarentino's movies. David Carradine said it best: Tarentino could make a movie all by himself. Producing, Directing, camera guy, soundtrack, editing etc.
Spielberg and Scorsese, as experienced as they are, cannot do an original score for their movies IMO, even in writing I don't think they are good at all, most of their movies are based on books.

If we're talking range, experience and talent, I take Ridley Scott any day over these guys. Alien, Gladiator, Telma and Louise... Future, Past, Present. Can you have more range than that? Lol.

SpezDispenser wrote:

hemlock wrote:The best perhaps at what he does, Tarantino-esque films aren't exactly all over the place. I'd put him in with a guy like Robert Rodriguez and David Fincher, but overall, he's not even close, in my opinion, to being the best director going. He's shown practically zero range. Spielberg has done practically every genre out there. There's also a guy named Scorsese, who's head and shoulders above QT, and has shown quite a bit more range.

I do love QT though, and would love to see what he could do in a straight up drama.

I would call Jackie Brown a drama and even Inglorious is more drama than anything else. Maybe a thriller? Hard to classify, the thing about him is that he combines elements from comedies, drama, thriller, action. It's quite a blend.

It is. But he's never really stepped out of his comfort zone and done a full blown comedy has he? That's sort of what makes his movies unique in that they cross over genres. I'm not arguing that he isn't a great director, I just don't think he's the best. Even Scorsese did a full blown comedy (albeit a dark comedy), with After Hours (classic film).

marakh wrote:No offense but putting QT in the same category as Rodriguez, I'd have to strongly disagree. Rodriguez is not a very good director, and most of his movies are blockbuster-ish.
Also, Spielberg and Scorcese are what 30 years older? (ok may be not). They certainly are more experienced but more talented, I don't think.
I love all of QT's movies, I think they are original and daring. Spielberg, yeah he has like 3 or 4 of my all time favourites, but along with 10+ stinkers (War of the worlds, seriously?) Scorcese is one of the best, no quesiton but again, most of them also look the same.
I don't know if you've watched Bonus contents in Tarentino's movies. David Carradine said it best: Tarentino could make a movie all by himself. Producing, Directing, camera guy, soundtrack, editing etc.
Spielberg and Scorsese, as experienced as they are, cannot do an original score for their movies IMO, even in writing I don't think they are good at all, most of their movies are based on books.

If we're talking range, experience and talent, I take Ridley Scott any day over these guys. Alien, Gladiator, Telma and Louise... Future, Past, Present. Can you have more range than that? Lol.

Ridley Scott is another great one. I'm not suggesting that Rodriguez is in the same league as Qt, rather than there films tend to have the same sort of genre (Sin City, Desperado). QT is hands down better than him, no question there.

EDIT: You cannot possibly be suggesting here that QT could do the original score for his movies are you? Picking the songs for the soundtrack perhaps, but the score? I doubt that. As far as I know, he's neither a classically trained musician, nor a composer.

hemlock wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

hemlock wrote:The best perhaps at what he does, Tarantino-esque films aren't exactly all over the place. I'd put him in with a guy like Robert Rodriguez and David Fincher, but overall, he's not even close, in my opinion, to being the best director going. He's shown practically zero range. Spielberg has done practically every genre out there. There's also a guy named Scorsese, who's head and shoulders above QT, and has shown quite a bit more range.

I do love QT though, and would love to see what he could do in a straight up drama.

I would call Jackie Brown a drama and even Inglorious is more drama than anything else. Maybe a thriller? Hard to classify, the thing about him is that he combines elements from comedies, drama, thriller, action. It's quite a blend.

It is. But he's never really stepped out of his comfort zone and done a full blown comedy has he? That's sort of what makes his movies unique in that they cross over genres. I'm not arguing that he isn't a great director, I just don't think he's the best. Even Scorsese did a full blown comedy (albeit a dark comedy), with After Hours (classic film).

His time will come. Tarentino, I have no doubt, can direct anyhting. He's only in his what 6th movie? Scorcese, Spielberg etc can do anything they want, they basically run the production house. When QT will be their age, he will do anything he wants too.

hemlock wrote:
No, he didn't. I guarentee it. Yeah, that's another mind boggling one.

EDIT: http://www.filmsite.org/aa98.html

Benigni won for Life is Beautiful over Tom Hanks (the aformentioned Saving Private Ryan), Ian McKellen, Nick Nolte, and Ed Norton.

OMG, that's sooooooooooooo wrong, I didn't even realize that.

marakh wrote:

hemlock wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

hemlock wrote:The best perhaps at what he does, Tarantino-esque films aren't exactly all over the place. I'd put him in with a guy like Robert Rodriguez and David Fincher, but overall, he's not even close, in my opinion, to being the best director going. He's shown practically zero range. Spielberg has done practically every genre out there. There's also a guy named Scorsese, who's head and shoulders above QT, and has shown quite a bit more range.

I do love QT though, and would love to see what he could do in a straight up drama.

I would call Jackie Brown a drama and even Inglorious is more drama than anything else. Maybe a thriller? Hard to classify, the thing about him is that he combines elements from comedies, drama, thriller, action. It's quite a blend.

It is. But he's never really stepped out of his comfort zone and done a full blown comedy has he? That's sort of what makes his movies unique in that they cross over genres. I'm not arguing that he isn't a great director, I just don't think he's the best. Even Scorsese did a full blown comedy (albeit a dark comedy), with After Hours (classic film).

His time will come. Tarentino, I have no doubt, can direct anyhting. He's only in his what 6th movie? Scorcese, Spielberg etc can do anything they want, they basically run the production house. When QT will be their age, he will do anything he wants too.

That's quite possible. However, we are talking about RIGHT NOW. And right now, QT just doesn't measure up to some other guys. That's not a bad thing, or even a fair comparison, but for here and now, there are guys that are just simply better than he is. You mentioned earlier about Spielberg and a bunch of flops. Flops happen too all directors, even QT (have you wasted a couple of hours on Kill Bill 2?). Spielberg will of course have more, just as a byproduct of his sheer volume of work.

marakh wrote:No offense but putting QT in the same category as Rodriguez, I'd have to strongly disagree. Rodriguez is not a very good director, and most of his movies are blockbuster-ish.
Also, Spielberg and Scorcese are what 30 years older? (ok may be not). They certainly are more experienced but more talented, I don't think.
I love all of QT's movies, I think they are original and daring. Spielberg, yeah he has like 3 or 4 of my all time favourites, but along with 10+ stinkers (War of the worlds, seriously?) Scorcese is one of the best, no quesiton but again, most of them also look the same.
I don't know if you've watched Bonus contents in Tarentino's movies. David Carradine said it best: Tarentino could make a movie all by himself. Producing, Directing, camera guy, soundtrack, editing etc.
Spielberg and Scorsese, as experienced as they are, cannot do an original score for their movies IMO, even in writing I don't think they are good at all, most of their movies are based on books.

If we're talking range, experience and talent, I take Ridley Scott any day over these guys. Alien, Gladiator, Telma and Louise... Future, Past, Present. Can you have more range than that? Lol.

Tarantino's movies are good ideas held together with elements he steals from Spaghetti Westerns and Blaxploitation movies.

SpezDispenser wrote:

hemlock wrote:
No, he didn't. I guarentee it. Yeah, that's another mind boggling one.

EDIT: http://www.filmsite.org/aa98.html

Benigni won for Life is Beautiful over Tom Hanks (the aformentioned Saving Private Ryan), Ian McKellen, Nick Nolte, and Ed Norton.

OMG, that's sooooooooooooo wrong, I didn't even realize that.

No kidding. I haven't seen Life is Beautiful (my Italian is admittedly non-existent to weak at best), but I've seen SPR and AHX. Imo, Norton, hands down, should have won that Oscar. He made you hate and love Derek Vinyard all at once.