Believe it or not Jay, some of the theaters here in L.A. are now turning a passive eye to people bringing in snacks and other items. Watched a woman walk in with a Chipolte burrito the other night

I think basically the industry had a bit of buyer's remorse with "Avatar." There's a few reasons why what happened happened: 1) From the moment Barbara Streisand walked out, it was clear what the agenda behind this season's awards would be. It felt words like "diversity" and "the first ____" and "trend-setting" were thrown around during the show more than the actual phrase "The Oscar goes to..." Removing the stereotyped thinking that buffers this, Bigelow was a woman director who defied the occupation. That was one thing that Academy was going to salivate over. The second is she's a woman director who defied the occupational stereotype while doing a military movie, which breaks a gender stereotype. Whatever you may think of the sexism behind that, there has been this subtext to the entire debate around "The Hurt Locker" and Bigelow. And The Academy hopped on it. 2) "The Hurt Locker" is simply more socially relevant than "Avatar." Now, this is not in terms of reality, but in terms of news and what people think about. I find it funny that I drive to the movies in my SUV, buy my popcorn in its bag and get my plastic bottle coke, and then munch away while watching a movie about wastefulness and the environment, and then probably throw half that stuff away anyway because the food sucks. "The Hurt Locker" though is largely in the forefront of people's minds because of the continuing wars, and because (to its credit) the allegedly "unbias" film so seamlessly blends its political perspective into the film that few ever notice or admit to the film's agenda. But it touches a cord, it hits a nerve that is both universal and very much exposed. 3) Cameron. "Avatar" was released and nearly every trade paper, every industry insider, and even fellow directors (shame on you, Scorsese) started hailing Cameron as this cinematic messiah. Then he got up during The Golden Globes and made an ass of himself, and was cocky, and was elitist, and then proceeded to give a series of patronizing interviews that included topics like his failed marriage, current movies, and "The Dark Knight." Suddenly, Cameron was the litmus against which all good cinema must be tested. Thus, last night, we saw the backlash of what happens when false humility rings out as just so much more false humility. So, either way, "Star Trek" or "Inglorious" should've won. I still feel that "The Hurt Locker" is a clean thriller cheaply pawning itself off as a character-study drama using both social relevance and a whole lot of pathos to do so.

Oh, and Avatar should be in the best adapted screenplay category

Like many, my first viewing of Avatar wowed me. But see, "Avatar" is like a really hot first date. The person is gorgeous, and this evening oozes with their sexiness and charm. Because they're so pretty, you take the person home for a night cap and as things get hot and heavy, and they start talking more, you begin to realize how the packaging doesn't match the pay off. The next morning, you wake up feeling pretty cheap, but not above seeing the person one more time (they are hot, after all). But even then, you're already looking for something with a lot more substance. With "Avatar," it couldn't be more true that when someone opens their mouth, it ruins everything. Most of the characters can't utter much more than cliche lines from early 90s and 80s films, and the emotional motivation behind those lines just doesn't match up. The Na'vi are an overly idealistic race with badly racist dimensions whose simplified depiction only serve the overbearing and suffocating political message which is the film's guiding purpose. Let's not even get into plot holes, whereby a deeply victimized people somehow divine that its good sense to teach an aggressive enemy Marine the inner workings of their isolated society by offering up their hot, young daughter to do the schooling. Really, Na'vi? You want to know why you guys lost Hometree...? But everyone loves the film. People are depressed because Pandora doesn't exist (I'm depressed it doesn't too, because then these morons could migrate and every intelligent being's life on Earth would be better for it). And even China is standing impressed with its ability to kill the Taiwanese.

What is sad is we're able to count "good female" directors on your finger in one list. I don't know who that speaks more to...

Sorry, I just don't buy either of these. I think there's a real reason that "The Road" flew far under and below a lot of people's radar's this year. It's just not that good, and honestly -- not a lot of surprises along the way to be had, and a rather hum-drum plot. I'm not saying I want constant climax. I just want some hard choices, and not the same hard choices every fifteen minutes. How many times can the father tell the kid to kill himself? How many times can the compassionate child debate with his war-weary father the ethical dimensions of post-apocalytpic hospitality? If I didn't get it with The Old Man, I definitely got it with The Thief. Not to mention that the character choices are so ambiguous and loosey-goosey that you can't place them. For example, The Father's decision to return the clothes really just shows the same "listening and caring for his child's emotions" from the film's beginning and not as a growth for his character in terms of compassion -- it's also a waste action too little, too late. The film's most important moment is "I HAVE TO WORRY TOO" and it comes off whiney and sort of untrue. That father, by far, has more to worry about. But Viggo comes off as a complete jerk setting a bad example for his son, and his line "we're the good guys" seems false and self-convincing -- and cruelly misleading to the child he's lying to. Not to mention, that by the end of the film, a lot of his father's paranoia is moot as his son conveniently falls into the arms of a random family whose been following them (which sounds more like a scavenging predator's game than a welcoming family). I like the questions raised, I just don't like how they're framed, explored, and answered -- often times in the most predictable and unimportant fashion. By the end of the film, I kept asking myself what did these characters actions have to do with anything, what did they mean, when the boy remains just a boy reduced to a second-class family member with a roaming family. Answer: nothing. Everything in that movie ends up being a film for experience, and not message or point or interest, and it just doesn't go anywhere. Haha, "The Road" is a road that leads to nowhere! Anyway, yeah.

I'm down for the Avatar/Star Trek smack. Yeah, Star Trek should be in there, and I do think that are some very interesting performances in Precious. However, the rest -- pft. Tarantino and Abrams were the only "wowed-me" directors of the year. Reitman just made me go "hmph, he doesn't always have to do overly-witty dialogue pieces. Hope for him yet. Bravo."

As for the top film of the year, as I've yet to put together my Academy Run-Down List, I would have to say I agree with the top two -- although In The Loop may just return and take the cake for me as I found the film absolutely hilarious.

I was utterly bored throughout "The Hurt Locker" and found the incessant whining of the soldiers to be grinding and trying. That movie would be no where near my top list of this year, nevermind cinema as a whole. "The Road" is something similar. I mean, it's engaging. However, I think it works better as a book and the filmmakers should've recognized the inherent flaws of the medium-translation and taking some actions to make the film a tad more structured and less redundant. It's great at establishing a mood and a situation, but while there are some interesting explorations of the human psychology to deal with devastation, nostalgia, and the reality of having to move on, the film leaves a great deal to be desired. Viggo barely saved this film from being completely boring as I found the kid touching, but rather average. And the ending proves to be just as contrived and convenient as the book (if not far more so since it happens within three minutes of the film's major climactic moment).

I love you, Rodney. Not as much as Bryce, but I love you. Prepare for my Smack of these two epic series.

I love you, Bryce. I love you.

Yeah, story is lame, but you do feel something, that's all I'm saying.

I've yet to see "It's Complicated." However, Up in the Air was pretty darn amazing, if a few weird issues.

I call Battlestar Galactica versus Lost.

I really think Godfather II just destroys all. "IT WAS AN ABORTION, MICHAEL!!!! AN ABORTION!" "IN MY HOUSE!" C'mon, so quotable!

Probably being a tad too hard on the story, but I agree.

I agree with all. Surprised by "Pineapple." I just watched "The Dark Knight" tonight with one of good friends who hadn't seen it (how? I do not know.). Either way, I decided at about the point that Gordon is overwhelmed by protecting Reese from Joker's ultimatum to the city that this film is my favorite film of all time. Yes, it's a comic book movie. Nevertheless, it's just...amazing. And, actually, oddly enough, I would say that "The Prestige" really is perfect, more so then "The Dark Knight." But the sheer scope and breadth of "The Dark Knight" pushes it ahead. Now in terms of Nolan and Anderson getting in the ring. "Zodiac" I am definitely on board with, as with "The Departed." I cannot follow you with "V." Also, Magnolia came out in theaters January 7th, 2000. Get your facts straight!

Sherry, this list is SOO you. I have to say: you are NOT OUT ON A LIMB with Duplicity, it was a lovely film that harkened back to those lovely, witty classics like Bringing Up Baby or North by Northwest with chemistry-driven actors like Cary Grant and Eva-Marie Saint or whoever the best doll actress was at the time pushing it hard, witty, and sexy. I absolutely loved it, and Tom Wilkinson is just AMAZING. I love his monologue on being "first." Also, Where The Wild Things are. I really would've put this in mine BUT I need more time to digest it. The films in my list I've seen at least three or four times, so I can really attest to their value and impact on me and, I think, film as a whole. I believe in time Where The Wild Things Are will arrive there. Also, In The Loop? I'm aching to see it. Can't wait. However, I was not a fan of The Hurt Locker at all.

Gonna have to say, interesting list. "Castaway" has me really surprised, although recently rewatching this summer I was surprised by it. "Downfall" and "Love Actually" are two welcomed -- and well-placed -- inclusions. Who doesn't get a little throat-lumpy when Emma Thompson tells Alan Ritchison that he made her look like a fool. Love it!

The film also suffers from the all-too-typical want to make alien representations for minority groups? Graft cultural stereotypes (voodoo chants and magic; dreadlocks; Asian spiritualism; Indian nature mysticism) and shove them all into non-white alien characters who are naive and simple-minded, thus unintentionally buffering the otherworldly inferiority stereotype these cultures face in our own society. To have dreadlocks is alien? I wasn't aware. That's why X-Men did it so well, and I haven't seen a film do it as good since. You don't make the "minority characters" simpletons, you give them something that makes them different (and in some cases superior) like kick-ass powers, and then let society react in a way that reflects on how we do it here in our society. Stan Lee's a genius, so is Bryan Singer.

I agree. The film's strength and weakness is its simplicity, and it didn't know where to draw the line when it came to the Na'vi. When Quaritch shouts, "We're gonna fight terror with terror," you go, "Huh?" The Na'vi were near-perfect, and this highlighted some illogical choices by the Na'vi, such as the Na'Vi King forcing his hot and sexy Na'vi daughter to rear the Marine in their ways? How is that wise? But it's played that they're too naive to really notice that they're teaching a SOLDIER how to infiltrate their society. Seem really shoddy. But yes, some extreme Na'vi doing crazy things to humans -- like kidnapping one of the workers and killing him. Then, have the Na'vi rulers punish these extremists in an effort to maintain the peace. This would've balanced the film and more accurately reflected the nuances of the film's major dramatic issue. Right now, the Na'vi are a tad too innocent, and the humans just utterly disgusting. The worst we saw of Na'vi offensiveness were the arrows in the tires of the huge bulldozers that are bulldozing...their land... Cameron does come dangerously close to neutering his own contemporary message by building the film's themes on straw-man characterizations that just don't exist anymore in reality.

Woah, Bryce. Best film? Hm, I don't know if I can get aboard that train but I can't wait to do my End of the Year Showdown. Best film....hmph, wait until you see it in 3D.

LMAO

District 890 coming Summer of 2189. But see, by then the aliens are going to show up, see all these films we've made about them, turn and go "wtf?" and then wipe us all out. Then we'll have alien films that talk about a group of human refugees stranded on their planet, bothering them with their loud cellphone rings, constant txting, and annoyingly high-tense political discussions about healthcare.

I think it's bad if it fails to make it clear it wanted them unanswered. It seemed they couldn't answer it and were simply trying to bridge the director's short film with the "thriller" ride it went into during its second act. In the end, they fit like disjointed lego pieces, and leave a lot of "huh?" But it is a great ride.