Showing posts with label Avatar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avatar. Show all posts

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Avatar

Director: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Stephen Lang, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi
Running Time: 162 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

How do I praise a film I think the movie industry would have been better off without? That I couldn't care less that I've gotten to Avatar this late reveals a lot about my interest level. Despite being presented with many opportunities to check it out in the theater over the past few months I passed on every one. I just had no desire to see it, which isn't unusual. There are a lot of movies released in a given year that don't interest me, it's just that none of them have been the most popular, highest grossing movie of all-time until now. I'm a huge sci-fi fan, but also sometimes a picky one who prefers character driven stories to fantasy, so this didn't look like it was in my wheelhouse at all.

I also disagree with those who believe a movie has to be "experienced" in a theater for maximum impact. If it does, chances are it probably has little else going for it other than special effects. That was probably my biggest beef with the film's success and why I stayed away from it. That and I hate the fact that every movie (whether warranted or not) is now being released in 3-D and they can jack up the ticket prices as long as everyone's eating it up. It's fair to blame James Cameron for all of this, yet it isn't. He tried to make the best movie he could and can't be held completely responsible for studios trying to capitalize on its success. When Star Wars was released in 1977 the same charges were leveled against George Lucas, and though that film negatively impacted movies in a similar way and ushered in the era of big effects driven blockbusters, the story and characters were the primary focus.

From my perspective the fallout from Avatar has been disastrous, but I promised myself if I ever saw the film (and there was legitimate doubt whether I would) I'd be objective in judging what's on screen, not the numerous problems it's release caused. So no, it isn't the most amazing thing I've ever seen but I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would, and as much as it pains me to admit, it's an undeniably great piece of entertainment that still plays very well on DVD. While mind-blowing visuals rule the day, the narrative is never sacrificed because of it and the few small issues I did have were the opposite of what I expected. Of course, the effects are unlike anything we've seen but given the amount of time and effort Cameron poured into the project and the hype it got, anything less would almost be considered unacceptable. Still, they're astounding, even on a flat-screen LCD.

What really threw me for a loop were the performances and how how caught up in the drama I became. What I didn't care for was all the spiritual and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that fought for dominance over the actual story, especially in the film's action-packed final hour. It seemed someone (I'm guessing Cameron) had an inexplicable desire to make an obvious eco-friendly message movie that would best be appreciated by Al Gore. To an extent, every film is a message movie in that it has a point of view but in this case beating us over the head with it isn't necessary because everything else works so well. It's a minor complaint, but a worthy one especially when the lesson is so trite and fails in telling us anything we didn't already know. But that the picture only suffers slightly from this is a real credit to Cameron's skills as a storyteller and action director.

The plot is practically common knowledge by now. It's the year 2154 on the planet Pandora and paraplegic ex-marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is selected to replace his deceased twin brother in a corporate-run program in which humans are remotely immersed in the indigenous population of the gigantic, blue-skinned Na'vi via "avatars." As the new chosen one, Jake's allegiances are torn between Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) and scientist Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), who have opposing philosophies regarding the goals for the operation and how interaction with the Na'vi should be handled. Whereas Quaritch wants Jake to gain their trust in order to procure valuable intelligence so he can violently displace them, Augustine is interested in opening the lines of communication with the species and protecting their culture. Jake is taken under the wing of a Na'vi named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) who teaches him the ways of her people and he becomes emotionally attached, questioning his allegiances. This sets him and the Na'vi people on a violent collision course with Quaritch.

Despite claims to the contrary, this is a strong story with performances to match it. There's no mistaking that the CG and visuals take precedence but none of it would have mattered if not narratively presented in a way that do them justice and makes sense. Cameron, like George Lucas, will never be be accused of being a master scribe or having a great ear for dialogue but he's an effective storyteller who knows how to craft a compelling sci-fi tale around action scenes and write strong characters. There are very few surprises in the story and there's never any real doubt how he's going to get there but he really knows how to get there better than most.

Summing up the well-told but not completely original plot as Ferngully meets Pocahantas might be a little harsh and overly reductive, but there's some truth to it. That didn't bother me though since it is presented in a visually fresh and interesting way. There are so few original stories out there and everything seems taken from something else, or at least incorporating elements from something else, that I'll just settle for the story not being told stupidly or coming off as a total knock-off. This didn't even come close to doing either, but when the focus was on the action the film flowed much better for me than when it was attempting to make viewers feel an emotional or spiritual connection to the story. In that regard the inter-species romance in the story surprisingly fared better than anything else.

I was absorbed and impressed throughout, but never really moved and part of the problem is that it's message of being at one with nature is being told to us rather than being shown or felt, as it was in superior films like Into The Wild or The New World. Both of those carried similar themes, but it needed to be extrapolated and discovered by the viewer along with the characters. I didn't get that impression here. We were clearly being told what to feel through the dialogue, which is fine to an extent since everything else is perfect, but less would have been more in delivering that message. This is partially representative of the current state of movies and entertainment in general today with studios primarily aiming to reach a demographic between the ages of 5 and 15, which isn't a problem unless you're not in it. The evidence of that is everywhere these days and could help explain the juvenile delivery of its message. It's admirable to make a movie the whole family can see but the more interesting action and sci-fi elements took a backseat when the movie probably would have been slightly better off grittier.

Ironically, as much as the scenes on Pandora break new cinematic ground, I preferred the human scenes at the station and the political tug-of-war taking place between the military and scientific factions, mainly because of Sigourney Weaver's performance. Cameron's always been a pro at writing strong female characters and Weaver is so determined in conveying Dr. Augustine's purpose that she brings a credibility to the story it probably wouldn't have otherwise. It contrasts well with Stephen Lang's no-nonsense, bad ass Colonel who's as entertaining as a villain can be in an action film while Giovanni Ribisi is the least irritating he's ever been as the greedy corporate head behind the program. The whole idea of avatars, how they work, what they mean and their consequences were more interesting to me than Jake's immersion into the Na'vi culture. As I watched I kept thinking that the big payoff should be the humans connecting with the Na'vi not as avatars, but themselves, and Cameron was smart enough to know that it was and build to that moment in the final hour so it really means something.

Worthington deserves more credit than he's gotten as the lead and in a way he acts as our avatar into this world as we see everything through his eyes, experiencing this world for the first time just as he is. He doesn't doing anything special, but doesn't need to and is smart enough to know that. He has a quiet charisma that works well for this and while another actor conceivably could have played the role and done equally well he's great nonetheless. It was also a smart detail on Cameron's part to make Jake a paraplegic so his journey ends up meaning more to him than it would your average Joe action hero. It's a small thing, but I'm not sure many other screenwriters would have thought to include it and the decision made the early scenes play that much better. You could argue the most overlooked performance comes from Zoe Saldana as Neytiri. Or does it? With this motion capture technology it's difficult to gauge just how much she really did and what was contributed via CG in post-production. That's why Cameron's claims that this new technology represents a new approach to acting and the future of moviemaking seem ridiculous. I sincerely hope he's wrong on all counts and can completely understand why actors are pissed about it.

Uttering the phrase, "You don't go into a movie like Avatar for it's story" is a total cop-out and really shouldn't be said in regard to any film, much less this one. Luckily, this does have an involving story but we may not be able to say the same for future projects abusing this technology so studios can make a quick buck. Cameron took a big risk and it paid off. Do I think the film would have been more exciting if seen on the big screen in 3D? Probably. But a film's quality shouldn't be entirely dependent on the format or circumstances in which it's viewed. Either way, Avatar holds up and there's nothing the slightest bit average about it. While each aren't without their issues, I'd slightly favor Avatar over its Best Picture rival The Hurt Locker just because this gave us something we've never seen before. But that doesn't mean I want to see anything like it again.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Burning Questions From the Academy Awards

It's officially over as the book is now closed on another year of movies. As a victim of the highly publicized war between ABC and Cablevision, I missed the first hour of the show last night. That didn't bother me too much considering it's usually about 15 hours too long anyway, I'm not big on musical numbers and the categories given out early (supporting actor, animated feature, best original song) were pretty much locks. But I was really interested in seeing the John Hughes tribute so I guess I'll have to catch up with that online. As far as my predictions, I went 16 for 24, and while that's far from embarrassing, it isn't anything to brag about and easily my worst showing in years. Missing the two screenplay categories killed me and the rest I bombed out on were the usual picks everyone misses in their office pools because they're just wild guesses (i.e. animated short).

The good news is that the ratings for the telecast were the highest in five years. Attribute that to two factors: Avatar and Sandra Bullock. Say what you want about them but the public clearly loves both and that's why they tuned in. It was all people talked about the next morning so despite The Hurt Locker racking up most of the awards it'll likely be joining the ranks of other forgotten Best Picture winners. It was a very predictable show but not an awful one and, as usual, there were many head scratching moments.

Even though I didn't see it yet, isn't it great that they actually paid tribute to John Hughes instead of just throwing him in the death montage?

And shouldn't they try to do that more often?

Shouldn't they have done it for Patrick Swayze also?

Is it some kind of cruel karma that my ABC feed came back just as Miley Cyrus was presenting an Oscar?

Did I just type the words Miley Cyrus and Oscar in the same sentence?

Can you believe Precious beat Up in the Air for Adapted Screenplay?

And didn't that completely throw a wrench in everyone's predictions?

With Jack Nicholson absent has George Clooney become the new go-to guy for reaction shots?

Has Nicholson given up attending the Oscars?

Can you blame him?

What was up with Clooney anyway?

Was he drunk?

Weren't Martin and Baldwin the two most absent hosts they've ever had for the telecast?

Was anyone clocking their screen time for the night?

How silly is it that they replaced "And the Oscar goes to..." with "And the winner is...?"

Did we really need this to be viewed as EVEN MORE of a competition?

Wasn't Mo'Nique dead-on in her speech about rewarding the performance not the politics?

And wouldn't it be nice if the Academy did that for more than just the two supporting categories?

When I heard the stars of Twilight would be appearing on the show was it wrong of me to hope they were referring to Gene Hackman and Susan Sarandon?

Did I actually see a clip from Twilight (the 2009 one) in the horror movie montage?

Is that montage the closest horror will ever get to an Academy Award?

Even after Morgan Freeman explained it, did you still have no idea what the difference is between sound mixing and sound editing?

Isn't it nice that they finally singled out The Dark Knight... for something...a year too late?

When Avatar lost both sound awards didn't you just know it wouldn't win Best Picture?

Is it a little unsettling for anyone that movie that's all CGI and green screen won Best Cinematography?

Is Elizabeth Banks thrilled that she now joins the elite company of Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel as the latest hottie selected to host the technical awards banquet?

For a change, wasn't James Taylor a great choice to perform during the In Memoriam section of the show?

How could they possibly exclude Farrah Fawcet and Bea Arthur?

After what seems like years in seclusion have you noticed that Jennifer Lopez has been showing up all over the place lately?

Was that interpretative dance tribute to the Best Original score nominees dumb or what?

How much sense does it make to include that on the show but leave out performances of Best Original Song?

Not really a question but....OSCAR WINNER FISHER STEVENS!

How many people watching actually got the connection between Keanu Reeves and The Hurt Locker?

How many people watching have even seen The Hurt Locker?

Does having these long, personal introductions for each nominee in the Actor and Actress category eat up enough time?

But isn't it worth the wait just to see Jeff Bridges FINALLY get what he deserves?

Wait a second...Jeremy Renner was in S.W.A.T.?

Doesn't Bridges' Oscar really tie the room together?

Is it okay if I pretend he won this for The Big Lebowski?

Could his turn as The Dude be the greatest un-nominated performance of all-time?

Is this the first career make-up Oscar we can actually cheer?

Couldn't they do a little better than having some of the nominees' co-stars from the performances they're nominated for THIS YEAR introduce them?

Wasn't Oprah's intro for Gaby Sidibe actually somewhat moving?

Didn't you kind of want her to pull the upset after that?

How much did that audience love Precious?

Even though The Hurt Locker and Avatar won more, didn't it feel like that movie came out as the big winner of the night?

How unfair is it that the Oscar season ends just as I finally learn how to pronounce Gabourey Sidibe's name correctly?

How much must Forest Whitaker love Sandra Bullock to publicly confess to directing Hope Floats?

Was it wrong of me for just a second to assume the connection between Whitaker and Bullock was that Whitaker starred in Hurricane Season?

Since Whitaker directed her in First Daughter, do you think Katie Holmes could be busy preparing her Oscar acceptance speech?

And after Bullock winning is that really so far-fetched?

Is ANYONE winning an Oscar really so far-fetched anymore?

How hard must it have been to go through Bullock's filmography and not find a co-star or director involved in an embarrassing project with her?

Wouldn't it have made much more sense to have Keanu introduce Bullock instead?

Is it okay if I pretend she won this for Speed?

How great a sport is she for accepting her Razzie Award for Worst Actress in person the night before?

How tacky was it for them to tell us to stay tuned to see if an "African-American or a woman wins an Oscar?"

How cringe-worthy and annoying was Barbra Streisand's presentation of the Best Director Oscar?

Was it almost as annoying as her actual "announcement" of the winner?

Does it even top Julia Roberts' legendarily awful presentation of the Best Actor Oscar to Denzel Washington in 2002?

Did you notice "Babs" still couldn't stop babbling even after Kathryn Bigelow took the stage to accept the award?

By the way, have you heard that Bigelow is the first woman to win the Best Director Oscar?

Is it wrong that a small part of me was pulling for The Blind Side to win Best Picture just to make the night more exciting and see audience members pass out?

If history is any indication, does The Hurt Locker's victory safely secure the shelf life of Avatar and Inglourious Basterds?

Can you believe that at well over 3 hours this was the SHORTEST Oscar telecast in history?

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Oscar Predictions

Well, my master plan to squeeze in viewings of all ten Best Picture nominees before the big show Sunday doesn't look like it'll come to pass. So far, I've seen 7 (not bad) and am still attempting to plow through the remainder of the nominees in a few other categories before the week is out but it's not looking so good. A lot of catching up to do. Regardless, I feel I still have enough familiarity with this year's contest to comfortably make my predictions on how things will turn out in all the major categories as well as the minor ones.

Of course, I'm more confident with some selections than others but overall I feel better about my chances of nailing these categories than I do about the chances of seeing an entertaining show given the pointless changes implemented and embarrassing presenters announced in a desperate, pathetic attempt to boost ratings and drive away any viewers left who watch to see quality films honored. Expect a little more of WHO WILL win than WHO SHOULD in my analysis below but I'll definitely be weighing in with my opinions on the films and performances I've seen and the way I'd like things to go.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

Matt Damon, "Invictus"
Woody Harrelson, "The Messenger"
Christopher Plummer, "The Last Station"
Stanley Tucci, "The Lovely Bones"
Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds"

As the charismatically evil Nazi Col. Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds Christoph Waltz is just about as much of a lock as Heath Ledger was last year. Had he not appeared in any part of the film but the opening scene he would still win this. By far the non-race of the night, but in a way it's great to have a performance so deserving it just towers above all the rest. Will be the third consecutive villainous role to win in this category. What's Matt Damon even doing here? Harrelson's nomination was reward enough. No one knows Plummer's in this race or saw his movie while the word on the street is that Tucci was merely creepy in a stock role. Not much competition. Even the Academy can't screw this one up. You can check off Waltz with a permanent magic marker.

Prediction: Christoph Waltz


Best Actor in a Leading Role

Jeff Bridges, "Crazy Heart"
George Clooney, "Up in the Air"
Colin Firth, "A Single Man"
Morgan Freeman, "Invictus"
Jeremy Renner, "The Hurt Locker"

Analysis: This is really Jeff Bridges' career achievement award which is fine since we all know this guy should have half a dozen Oscars on his mantle already. But that's not implying the performance (which I still haven't seen) isn't deserving on its own merits. Rarely does he ever do work that isn't award-worthy. If that's not enough, he playing an alcoholic and we know how much they love it when actors do that. Clooney fell behind in this race a while back, having the misfortune to be nominated against a huge favorite much like he was a couple of years ago against Daniel Day-Lewis (for a far better performance in Michael Clayton). Freeman's nod feels obligatory. Colin Firth suffers from a common problem: Highly praised performance in a small film no one's seen. The spoiler could be Renner because as over-praised as the Hurt Locker is, his performance is strangely kind of underrated in a way. The film isn't generally viewed as an actor's movie but it should be because he carried all of it. The only small glimmer of hope he has is that Bridges' film isn't nominated for Best Picture. But as it stands now, this one isn't even close.

Prediction: Jeff Bridges


Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Penélope Cruz, "Nine"
Vera Farmiga, "Up in the Air"
Maggie Gyllenhaal, "Crazy Heart"
Anna Kendrick, "Up in the Air"
Mo'Nique, "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

Analysis: In a category with a long history of shocking upsets don't expect any this time around. It's no secret Mo'Nique's taking this for her role as monstrous mother from hell Mary Jones in Precious and no matter what you may think of the polarizing film, she's earned it. Kendrick and Farmiga will split their votes, but it still boggles my mind Farmiga's performance as basically a female George Clooney is deemed Oscar worthy in the slightest. That she's in while Inglourious Basterds' Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger are snubbed is a joke. Penelope Cruz is just lucky to be there so if there's a spoiler it'll be the respected and well-liked Gyllenhaal for her turn as a reporter opposite Bridges in Crazy Heart. But that's not happening. It's a done deal.

Prediction: Mo'Nique


Best Actress in a Leading Role
Sandra Bullock, "The Blind Side"
Helen Mirren, "The Last Station"
Carey Mulligan, "An Education"
Gabourey Sidibe, "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
Meryl Streep, "Julie & Julia"

Analysis: A two-way Streep/Bullock race with Bullock firmly in the lead. Mirren is the only nominee with NO CHANCE of winning since no one's seen that film and she was just nominated because she's Helen Mirren. If anyone's going to sneak in it will be Sidibe. No one's had a bad word to say about her performance and if voters get tired of hearing about the two front runners, she's a worthy alternative. The same could be said (to a lesser extent) for Mulligan but the film she stars in probably doesn't have enough mileage to secure her the votes necessary for a surprise win. With newcomers the nod is often reward enough. Everyone loves a comeback story and there's no better one than Sandra's...at least commercially. If nothing else, expect a memorable speech.

Prediction: Sandra Bullock


Best Directing
James Cameron, "Avatar"
Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"
Quentin Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds"
Lee Daniels, "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
Jason Reitman, "Up in the Air"

Analysis: Unless James Cameron gets a sex change operation before Sunday we can comfortably call this race over. He's probably thought of (rightly or wrongly) by voters as more of a motion capture or special effects coordinator than a director anyway. It's just a shame all the focus is on Kathryn Bigelow being the first woman to win Best Director rather than the actual work itself. Sure, she may have been nominated because of the work but she'll be winning because of her gender and the Academy's need to "make history." And I can't think of a worse reason to hand someone an Oscar. Lost in all this is the fact that Tarantino deserves to win. How many other directors could have taken that material and accomplished what he did? Unfortunately, he doesn't stand a chance. No one else in this category does either.

Prediction: Kathryn Bigelow


Best Picture
"Avatar"
"The Blind Side"
"District 9"
"An Education"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
"A Serious Man"
"Up"
"Up in the Air"

Analysis: The field of nominees may have expanded to ten this year there's really only five to talk about here: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Precious and Up in the Air. The remaining pictures are just filling up slots and don't have chance. A win for Avatar is a win for big budget, effects-driven movie making and sci-fi, which is never recognized for anything. Commercialism wins out and the profile of the Academy Awards as a barometer for public taste rises slightly. Finally a movie wins that people have seen and heard of.

A Hurt Locker victory accomplishes just the opposite. No one's heard of it. It made no money. It covers a depressing topic. Film snobs everywhere rejoice while Hollywood bleeds money at the worst time and ratings for the Oscar telecast plummet. None of this should matter and the BEST FILM should be awarded the statue, but it matters... to them. It seems everything but the actual quality of the films is taken into account when voters fill out their ballots which is why the Oscars have very little credibility left.

That The Hurt Locker would be the lowest grossing winner in history hurts its chances but Avatar has even more going against it. It's the type of movie guaranteed to get a strong response either way while it's almost impossible to find one person who didn't at least like The Hurt Locker (if they saw it). Besides featuring new technology many in the industry (especially actors) aren't yet willing to embrace, Cameron isn't exactly known as the most likable guy around. Nor was it nominated in any screenplay or acting categories, which is unheard of for a potential Best Pic winner. And with the exception of the Golden Globe, it's lost every precursor award usually needed to win. So it won't.

I still haven't seen Avatar so can't comment on its worthiness, but plan on re-watching THL before Sunday in hopes of seeing this "masterpiece" everyone is raving about because, while I still respected it greatly, I just don't get what all the fuss is about. It feels like something we've seen before. On the other hand, Inglourious Basterds was a film that should have felt very familiar but didn't because Tarantino took an issue and completely revolutionized it. It works as compelling drama AND a fun piece of entertainment that should hold up years from now. I'm still hoping the top two favorites cancel each other out and it somehow pulls off the upset but that's wishful thinking.

Prediction: The Hurt Locker


Other Categories:

Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell, "District 9"
Nick Hornby, "An Education"
Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche, "In the Loop"
Geoffrey Fletcher, "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
* Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, "Up in the Air"

Best Writing (Original Screenplay)
Mark Boal, "The Hurt Locker"
* Quentin Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds"
Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman, "The Messenger"
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "A Serious Man"
Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Tom McCarthy, "Up"

Best Animated Feature Film
"Coraline"
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"The Princess and the Frog"
"The Secret of Kells"
"Up"

Best Art Direction
* "Avatar"
"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
"Nine"
"Sherlock Holmes"
"The Young Victoria"

Best Cinematography
"Avatar"
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"
* "The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"The White Ribbon"

Best Costume Design
"Bright Star"
"Coco Before Chanel"
"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
"Nine"
* "The Young Victoria"

Best Makeup
"Il Divo"

* "Star Trek"

"The Young Victoria"

Best Documentary Feature
"Burma VJ"
* "The Cove"
"Food, Inc."
"The Most Dangerous in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers"
"Which Way Home"

Best Documentary Short
"China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province"
"The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner"
* "The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant"
"Music by Prudence"
"Rabbit à la Berlin"

Best Film Editing
"Avatar"
"District 9"
* "The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

Best Foreign Language Film
"Ajami," Israel
"El Secreto de Sus Ojos," Argentina
"The Milk of Sorrow," Peru
"Un Prophète," France
* "The White Ribbon," Germany

Best Music (Original Score)
"Avatar"
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Sherlock Holmes"
* "Up"

Best Music (Original Song)
"Almost There," "The Princess and the Frog"
"Down in New Orleans," "The Princess and the Frog"
"Loin de Paname," "Paris 36"
"Take It All," "Nine"
* "The Weary Kind (Theme from 'Crazy Heart')," "Crazy Heart"

Best Short Film (Animated)
"French Roast"
"Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty"
"The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)"
"Logorama"
* "A Matter of Loaf and Death"

Best Short Film (Live Action)
* "The Door"
"Instead of Abracadabra"
"Kavi"
"Miracle Fish"
"The New Tenants"

Best Sound Editing
* "Avatar"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Star Trek"
"Up"

Best Sound Mixing
"Avatar"
* "The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Star Trek"
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"

Best Visual Effects
* "Avatar"

"District 9"
"Star Trek"