Comments on: Austin Film Critics Agree, The Hurt Locker is Best of ’09

By: Jeff R Hall

Jeff R Hall — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:39:05 +0000

Oooohhh, good points. I didn't realize Blood had grossed so little and had forgotten that Letters got a (well deserved) nod.

A better point and one that I feel I echoed, but not nearly as eloquently, is the lack of name recognition in The Hurt Locker. It seems to have made such a small impact and you nailed exactly why. It was critically regonized as much as the other films mentioned, but it's not as "sexy." Oscar voters are NOT always the film geeks we are. They are just folks who are in the industry.

The 10 slots will be the reason The Hurt Locker gets noted (Presuming it does of course) but I still doubt there is any way it will get a nod, no matter how deserving.

By: adamcharles

adamcharles — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:43:30 +0000

Letters from Iwo Jima only grossed 13 million domestically, and at the time the Academy Awards were announced in 2008 There Will Be Blood had only grossed about 16 million or so (it capped out at 40 mil). Frost/Nixon only grossed about 18 million.

It's not so much that The Hurt Locker didn't make a lot of money and therefore may be affected come Oscar time because of it, it's that it has no names attached that really carry any kind of Oscar notoriety like the above films do, plus it came out during the summer and isn't as fresh on everyone's mind.

Clint Eastwood, Ron Howard, and now even PT Anderson have all worked their way into the minds of Oscar voters and can get over a lackluster boxoffice intake to receive nominations. Kathryn Bigelow doesn't have the Oscar history to do the same. If The Hurt Locker had any kind of name attached to it in a major role nobody would question its likelihood to get nominated, but since it doesn't and doesn't have a big directorial name either it's not quite as likely. Though, still pretty damn likely considering there are 10 total nominees this year. I can't imagine which 10 movies are picked if The Hurt Locker isn't one of them.

By: Jeff R Hall

Jeff R Hall — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:39:05 +0000

By: adamcharles

adamcharles — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:43:30 +0000

By: Neil Miller

Neil Miller — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:18 +0000

I propose a televised, back-alley fight… Jets v. Sharks style. We'll settle this turf war once and for all!

Seriously though, I thought we were supposed to order those top tens. Either way, you're right. It probably wasn't the AICN kids, and likely has something to do with me laying down love for Trek at the AFCA pre-vote dinner. That said, I'm still surprised to see it go so high. That couldn't have been all me…

By: Jeff R Hall

Jeff R Hall — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:39:26 +0000

Dr. Abiuas - You are correct that money does not equal Oscar success, but has there ever been a best picture nod for a movie with such a low gross? (And presumably number of screens it played on?)

The thing about big money films is exposure. I know that Oscar voters are offered screenings and DVDs to watch the nominees, but I'd also bet that most of the elegible voters don't watch or attend. (Not due to negligence, but real life priorites like family and work.)

Frankly, I think The Hurt Locker was the best film of the year. I'm just hoping that enough Oscar voters agree with me.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:18:29 +0000

I would bet major money that The Hurt Locker has a solid showing at the Oscars. If it doesn't get a Best Picture nomination, I'd be dumbfounded.

Plus, movies that don't gross much money have a track record of success with the Academy….

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:18:29 +0000

I would bet major money that The Hurt Locker has a solid showing at the Oscars. If it doesn't get a Best Picture nomination, I'd be dumbfounded.

Plus, movies that don't gross much money have a track record of success with the Academy….

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:16:51 +0000

I didn't have it on my list at all. Because, you know, it's not one of the 10 Best of the year. Plus, I didn't have many slots since I put The Hurt Locker on there three times.

By: C. Robert Cargill

C. Robert Cargill — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:02:48 +0000

Now, now, now Neil, before the Reject kids start throwing stones at the Ain't it Cool kids, keep in mind that placement has everything to do with HOW MANY LISTS IT APPEARED ON and very little to do with how high it was. Many of us didn't bother to order our Top 10s. The fact that you put STAR TREK on your list is why it ranked so high, whereas several of these films didn't appear on some of our lists at all.

Read more at Film School Rejects: Austin Film Critics Agree, The Hurt Locker is Best of ‘09 - Film School Rejects http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/austin-fi...

By: C. Robert Cargill

C. Robert Cargill — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:02:22 +0000

By: Jeff R Hall

Jeff R Hall — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:46:54 +0000

I'm glad to see that The Hurt Locker is getting notice, at least from the Austin critics. I'm curious if this film will even make the top ten Oscar list? Seeing that it has only grossed $12 Million dollars it's a good bet that most of the Oscar voters have not seen this film.

By: Neil Miller

Neil Miller — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:03:30 +0000

I found the high placement of Star Trek to be interesting. I know I didn't have it that high, and wouldn't expect Abaius to place it up there. However, you do have to remember that we share voting rights with the Ain't It Cool kids… And they eat that shit up.

That said, I loved Trek (obviously) and was surprised at the well-roundedness of our Decade list. That, and I voted for Melanie Laurent, goddamnit!

By: RobHunter

RobHunter — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:14:46 +0000

The group earns respect for placing The Hurt Locker at #1, but loses it all when they put Star Trek as the #2 film of the year. It was a fun movie, but come on people…

Happily the AFCA regains that respect by naming Eternal Sunshine as #1 of the decade. Great choice!