The best film award is for English-speaking movies. They have a foreign language category. Yes, the Oscars are largely political. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. That doesn't mean that a movie with an unoriginal story and characters should win over other films that, as a package, are superior works of cinema. Avatar shouldn't be given a pass just because it was so pretty, just like Star Wars didn't win 33 years ago. It wasn't the best film that year and that has nothing to do with its "classic" status or I could argue that one of the most-watched movies of all time, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, should have cleaned up in the awards.

And you obviously didn't watch The Hurt Locker if you think it's pro-Iraq. I watched that movie and saw one man with nothing left to live for who had a death wish surrounded by a bunch of twenty-somethings who were scared out of their goddamned minds for the entire movie. I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement for that war. It respected the soldiers (as we all should) but it didn't glorify the actual combat itself.

Best Picture:

What I think will win: The Hurt Locker
What I want to win: Avatar
The Dark Horse: Inglourious Basterds

Best Actor:

Think: Jeff Bridges
Want: Jeff Bridges
Dark Horse: Colin Firth

Best Supporting Actor:

Think: Christoph Waltz
Want: Christoph Waltz
Dark Horse: Woody Harrelson

Best Actress:

Think: Sandra Bullock *blarg*
Want: Gabourey Sidibe
Dark Horse: Meryl Streep

Best Supporting Actress:

Think: Mo'nique
Want: Mo'nique
Dark Horse: Anna Kendrick

Animated Film

Think: Up
Want: Up
Dark Horse: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Best Director

Think: Kathryn Bigelow
Want: Kathryn Bigelow
Dark Horse: Quentin Tarantino

Actually you're wrong. Non-english language films are eligible for Best Picture, and several have been nominated before (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Life Is Beautiful; Z; Cries and Whispers), it's just that theu never have a chance of winning because americans just don't want to admit that a foreign movie is the best movie of the year. Also Star Wars deserved best picture, not because it was pretty, but because it was the best movie released that year. Annie Hall is oner of the most boring laughless and unmemorable romantic comedies ever. Heck, even the American Film Institute thinks that Star Wars is a better movie than Annie Hall (check their all time list). The Academy never gives the cool movie the award, no matter how good it is, because they like to seem pretentious.

And movies shouldn't be given just a pass because their biopics (Ghandi, A Beautful Mind), deal with race issues (Crash), or are war movies, but movies like this always win even if their not good at all, so it would be nice for a change of a sci-fi movie would win (if Avatar doesn't, no schi-fi movie will probably win in the near future, which is a shame).

And the Academy is falling into irrelevance, mostly because they have been choosing many irrelevant movies that no one has seen, and that no one cares about. Choosing The Hurt Locker would just be another nail in the Academy's coffin (shame when you think that once upon a time the Oscars was the biggest event of the year, now more people care about the Super Bowl than the Oscars, though I can understand why people care more about anerican football than seeing boring forgettable movies winning Oscars).

I meant to type "usually" in the Best Picture sentence because I know foreign language films are technically eligible, they're just rarely nominated. Part of it is that many people just don't see them but you're right, there is an obvious bias in the Academy against those films.

I also agree that movies shouldn't be given a pass because of their subject nature (though I disagree with you on Ghandi, I really like that film) because I thought Crash was a heavy-handed piece of trash that dealt with racism with an iron fist (actually, I have the same complaints about Avatar).

I disagree about The Hurt Locker. I think it's a great film. You have a point about previous award winners (The English Patient, anyone?) but overall, the nature of the Oscars is going to pick some less-watched films for Best Picture because, frankly, American taste in movies is pretty fucking terrible. The most-watched films are often some of the worst and it's rare to see a movie make a shitload of money and still possibly be the best film of the year (I'd say Titanic deserved what it won).

Ya, usually the movie that wins Best Picture has a fairly low revenue because most us Americans have no taste in good movies or biased on their beliefs(is anyone thinking about Brokeback Mountain?). Few movies that deserve to win it actually do. There are exceptions like American Beauty, No Country for Old Men, Return of the King, Ghandi, Silence of the Lambs, Braveheart, Schindler's List, Rain Man, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, The Godfather Part 1 and 2, Lawrence of Arabia, and the Departed. But recently ther have been alot of movies winning Best Picture that don't deserve it's worthy title. This year, I think Inglourious Basterds is a worthy addition to that list. Avatar would destroy it.

I'm not talking necessarily about box office gross. It's also the importance of a film and the impact it has on the medium. Avatar is a groundbreaking film who probably has forever changed how visual effects are used in live action films to tell a story.  The Hurt Locker is just another war movie that will be forgotten bu this time next year. Remember movies are an audio-visual medium. The story plays second fiddle to the presentation. Citizen Kane had a pretty good story, but it is considered one of the best movies of all time today thanks to it's innovative filmaking techniques (visual effects used to create large interiors and crouds, special effects makeup, time compression etc.), though when released the movie was overlooked by the Academy, loosing best picture to the formulatic forgettable How Green Was My Valley.

Oh, and BTW Ghandi only won because it was a biopic about Ghandi. It was in no way better than E.T. or even Tootsie for that matter, and not to mention the unnominated Blade Runner.

blah! These choices are honestly not that great? Avatar doesn't deserve an Oscar, its plot was very contrived, dialogue was shite as well.

The Oscars mean about as much as the Grammy's now.

That's where I disagree. Story doesn't play second fiddle to visuals; it is of equal importance. If Avatar had ANYTHING involving intriguing characters or an interesting story, I'd be right there with you cheering it on to a Best Picture award.

It doesn't. The characters are directly ripped out of Cameron's earlier movies and the story is so predictable that I knew what was going to happen from the TRAILER. When one portion of a film is so disappointing, I don't see how it should win Best Picture no matter how impressive other aspects of the film are, especially when there are other films that have a more polished and balanced approach to filmmaking.

No they aren't. In terms of value an Academy Award is worth a lot more than a grammy. The decision to expand to 10 films was stupid I agree. Of the ten the only ones I see that don't deserve the nod are The Blind Side and Up In the Air.

I never said story plays second fiddle to visuals. I said that, in the case of movies, story plays second fiddle to presentation. I also never said Avatar has a great story or intriguing characters. I said that it uses visual effects in an innovative way to tell a story. It by far the most important movie to come along in long time, and it's filmmaking techniques will influence many future movies and will probably become standard. If you only care about story read a book. Movies are about much more than that. And BTW Avatar isn't even my first choice to win best picture. But I'd rather it win than some cliche choice like The Hurt Locker (war movie, no one's seen it, no one cares) or Inglorious Basterds (nazis).