Bullets 'n' Babes

Anyone see these? i didn't, was on nights.seems like the winners were a predictable bunch, nice to see Jeff Bridges win one though i haven't seen Crazy Heart.Sandra Bullock for Blind Side? again not seen it. Christopher Waltz for Basterds was a cert,superb performance, he deserved it for the electrifying opening 20 minute sequence alone Monique for Precious again not seen,Hurt Locker best movie? not a bad movie but severly over hyped imo.preferred Up or Basterds myself.Bigelow for best director/well at least we avoided another Cameron King Of The World up in his own arse shite speech

Did anyone actually see The Hurt Locker? What a left of centre/out of nowhere win. It didn't exactly do well theatrically, did it?

bradavon wrote: What a left of centre/out of nowhere win.

It was the favourite

bradavon wrote:It didn't exactly do well theatrically, did it?

Huge flop.it'll probably make it's money back and more now.i have the blu-ray,may give it another watch before selling it on.i was a little underwhelmed.didn't care for the characters. i think Romero is a fan.

It was not a flop, it only cost $10 million. It made that back and far more, the dvds and blu Rays alone will tip it into big profit

romerojpg wrote:It was not a flop, it only cost $10 million. It made that back and far more, the dvds and blu Rays alone will tip it into big profit

so this article is wrong then?it was a flop at cinemas,how can you argue otherwise? of course it'll make a profit now.but it flopped at the cinema.

http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment ... 6-qmi.html

"The Hurt Locker has now taken in only $19.3 million worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo’s latest figures" yeah real box-office sleeper there alright

"It would become the most unwatched and underappreciated best picture winner in decades."

Avatar was the favourite.

I predicted the other wins without having seen any of the films.

saltysam wrote: so this article is wrong then?it was a flop at cinemas,how can you argue otherwise? of course it'll make a profit now.but it flopped at the cinema.

It made cash and profit, so how exactly did it "flop". It just did not make hundreds of millions.

saltysam wrote:Huge flop.it'll probably make it's money back and more now.i have the blu-ray,may give it another watch before selling it on.i was a little underwhelmed.didn't care for the characters. i think Romero is a fan.

That's what I mean. It's so rare for such an utter flop to do so well at The Oscars.

romerojpg wrote:It made cash and profit, so how exactly did it "flop". It just did not make hundreds of millions.

That means it's a flop.

If it cost only cost $10 million to make but made only $19.3 million worldwide, that means roughly speaking it only made $9.3 million profit. By the standards of Hollywood that's definitely a flop. Just because it didn't "lose" money, it can still be a flop.

I barely saw it even get mentioned during it's theatrical run, it seemed that was the consensus. You blinked and it was gone. It's the sort of film to be a sleeper hit.

Markgway wrote:Avatar was the favourite.

It's so strange it didn't win. The "BIG" winners, usually always get it. Look at Titanic. I liked it at the time but you couldn't say it won because artistically it's a great film.

bradavon wrote: That means it's a flop.

No it doesnt if a film Loses cash, then its a flop. Thsi film lost nothing, it made cash and will make a massive profict after dvd and BR and TV rights sales.

Hmm, it makes its money back and achieves enough critical and award ceremony acclaim to considerably up the profile of Kathyrn Bigelow and pretty much everyone involved with the film, and yet it's a flop! Seriously guys I expect the cries of "It's a flop" from brainless journalists looking for a low-content news article to fill the gaps in their latest issue and idiotic chavs off the street who gauge a film's success by the empty statistics of how many hundreds of millions the latest bland sci-fi fantasy blockbuster or pointless remake made.

The bottom line is that any film made with a budget of $15million with no-name stars, no coventional narrative, and a director who hasn't had a hit in years (and never had a reputation for delivering massive hits in the first place) was never made to rake in the megabucks, but because The Hurt Locker only just managed to make its money back then it's true that it did ultimately perform disappointingly at the box-office - but that only tells a fraction of the story about the film's success or failure.

As said, I merely meant it's a very low key film to win the "Best Film" Oscar. That usually goes to the likes of, well Avatar.

Box office failure or not the film just isn't all that good (imo) Bigelow was making far better movies years ago.

Markgway wrote:Avatar was the favourite.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film ... -film.html
http://www.sunshine-sportsbook.com/Ente ... eview.html

Think Avatar was the early front-runner but Hurt Locker ended up favourite,i think. no matter, Up should've won from the ones i've seen.

Avatar - not seen it
Hurt Locker - not seen it, though I bet it will be a better "film" than Avatar if you get what I mean. I'd like to see both at some point.

I cannot be bothered with Avatar at all. I only ever wanted to see it to see a film in 3D but now Alice in Wonderland is out. I'm going to see that instead. Avatar looks rubbish, gorgeous looking rubbish but still rubbish.

saltysam wrote:Think Avatar was the early front-runner but Hurt Locker ended up favourite,i think. no matter, Up should've won from the ones i've seen.

Hurt Locker must've gotten a last minute push as it seemed to come out of nowhere as far as best picture was concerned.

Cameron expected Avatar to win picture but not director (he rightly thought Bigelow).

bradavon wrote:I cannot be bothered with Avatar at all. I only ever wanted to see it to see a film in 3D but now Alice in Wonderland is out. I'm going to see that instead. Avatar looks rubbish, gorgeous looking rubbish but still rubbish.

What's funny about that?