I tend to think that every year. And yet, I keep coming back.

Does no one ever really quit?

I didn't watch the Oscars. I haven't even been on the forum for the past week. Life keeps you busy.

But I can't say I'm surprised by what won. Usually, when given a chance to honor the deserving, the Academy goes for the predictable. That's the way it's always been.

I don't know... I never expected 'No Country For Old Men' to win, considering how much of a 'non Oscar winner' it actually is (not a BAD movie but a movie that isn't... Oscar material... if that makes sense) nor 'Slumdog Millionaire (pretty much the same reason). 'The King's Speech', whilst still not crammed with widespread appeal has more of what I'd predict to be an award winner; titanic cast, spectacular photography and cultural importance/significance (this last point will be argued by people who are ignorant of history). Call me naive but those are qualities I'd associate with 'Oscar'.

I've just read a bit more into this thread and I'm appauled at people's attitude that 'The King's Speech' is nothing more than 'Oscar bait'. The real life events surrounding the story are among the most important in 20th century British history.



The trap has been sprung. Unlucky!

I thought the King's Speech was terrific for all the reasons you mentioned. Its a deserving winner, and I am def not in the Social Network camp, which will fade as fast as Facebook does in a few years. At least the King's Speech was written the way people actually talk, ironic as that might sound, compare with SN, which sounds like a bunch of kids trying to keep up with each other in a speed reading class.

And while Inception was good, I just didn't care anymore by the end of the movie, even though the visuals were tremendous, spinning top or not, who really even gave a shit anymore at that point? How much bouncing around dream levels can one person take?

Anyway, I dont even care about the winners cause the best movies dont even get nominated, and I am going to try real hard not to pay attention at all next year... Fat chance, but....

Yeah, but who cares? December 7, 1941 may be a date that will live in infamy... but it made for one clunker of a blockbuster (and one half-way decent film in the 50's).

It seems like people are throwing the kitchen sink into justifying this choice. Honestly, it was only arguably one of the best films of 2010 - and the amount of important awards it tallied over the evening was a waste to the other candidates who frankly deserved those statuettes more (in particular, Fincher for Director). I still maintain that 'The Social Network' was more deserving, and in time will be deemed a better choice. 'Inception' will, as James said, have the highest stature of any film from 2010 when viewed many years down the road - but that's only a testament to how overrated the film is. I was totally unmoved by the experience except in fits and starts.

P.S. - Christopher Nolan has time to prove himself. So far, he possesses an amazing (some may say Kurosawa-ish) ability to reign in difficult, high-budget productions and craft them into pieces of film art. Whether or not this makes him a great director is not necessarily inherent in that description; his touch is coolly professional and unnervingly consistent, but not indelible. I argue that he needs to spend some more years in and out of the system before he can be taken seriously as a true 'great'.

Obviously I care as people are using it as their soul reason for disliking the movie! My honest view is that Nolan should have taken the lot; he's been my favourite director for the better part of the last decade (knocking both Boyle AND Fincher from that top spot). Fincher is by no means a bad director but I have to wholeheartedly agree with MrGuinness (ouch the pain! ) and make reference to the "crammingasmuchdialougeintoeverysinglesecondofthemovie" that seemed to be the trademark 'hook' of 'The Social Network', not to mention several other recent movies that "appeal ter stuudents!" (imagine that phrase in the voice of Ross Noble!).

One day, Christopher Nolan will be recognised as the man who didn't enter the prick waving contest that is 3D and concentrated instead on making decent cinema. He is by no means without fault, as he did exactly what I've been lamenting Fincher for lately (remaking a foreign film in English the moment it arrives in theatres) however unlike Fincher, Nolan hasn't 'accidentally' his career and dignity. Please, for the love of christ, make sure you understand this is an OPINION and don't jump down my throat about it.

Just re-watched The Social Network for about the 3rd or 4th time. It still stands as the leading film of 2010, ahead of Inception.

The King's Speech stands as a good movie. A good not a great one and its intial charms wear off the more you think about it and the more you realize it's one part underdog becomes a champ movie, one part lifelong friendship movie. In some ways I see this as a repeat of what happened with Shakespeare In Love.



I'm not a fortune teller. But I think the same will be true a dozen years from now for The Social Network. I suspect it will be regarded as a modern classic while The King's Speech will have become largely irrelevant.

I attribute The Social Netowrk's best picture loss to a few factors:

1: The Academy voters reluctance to embrace a film associated with something of the moment. This made them unable to look beyond the Facebook elements and see that beyond those, this film is full of classic elements.

2: Backlash

3: The fact that The King's Speech had a protagonist that you could root for, while The Social Netowrk had an unlikable one.

Ive seen social network a number of times now on cable, and I still think it is undeserving. Two extended scenes where you can barely hear the dialog for the volume of the music and Andrew Garfield's less than convincing acting, IMO, knock it down greatly IMO. In fact, the only scene of any real cinematic resonance for me was the rowing competition's sound and editing.