The 82nd Annual Academy Awards

Started by Gold Trumpet, June 24, 2009, 01:32:11 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mogwai

Quote from: MacGuffin on February 17, 2010, 11:41:27 PM
Artists behind Oscar-nominated songs won't perform

LOS ANGELES - Some of Oscar's most memorable moments have come during performances of nominated songs.

Among them: rap group Three 6 Mafia surrounded by streetwalkers as they performed "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" from "Hustle & Flow" in 2006, and Celine Dion's resplendent performance of the "Titanic" hit, "My Heart Will Go On," in 1998.

Don't expect such musical moments at the 82nd Academy Awards.

The artists behind the year's five nominated songs will not perform during the Oscar telecast. Instead, the songs will be showcased with clips from the films that featured them, "which is how most nominated achievements are featured within the show," Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences spokeswoman Leslie Unger said Wednesday.

That means Randy Newman won't get to take the stage for his two nominated tunes, "Almost There" and "Down in New Orleans" from "The Princess and the Frog."

Marion Cotillard won't reprise her sexy, heart-wrenching performance of "Take It All," written by Maury Yeston for "Nine." Reinhardt Wagner and Frank Thomas can't bring their "Loin de Paname" from "Paris 36" to life.

And "The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)" won't be performed by "Crazy Heart" star Jeff Bridges or writers Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett.

"We haven't been invited," Bingham said, seeming a bit surprised.

Yet there will still be dancing on the show. Producer and choreographer Adam Shankman announced on his Twitter page that he cast 69 dancers for the show's production numbers, though he hasn't revealed exactly what he has planned.

The Oscar troupe includes at least a dozen dancers from the Fox reality show "So You Think You Can Dance," where Shankman serves as a judge.

"All there for the movies!" he tweeted.

The Academy Awards will be presented March 7 at the Kodak Theatre and broadcast live on ABC.

What a sore defeat for Randy Newman. He sure had his game going. Now it's back to the skids. :yabbse-sad:

MacGuffin

Oscars favorite in trouble over campaign blitz

LOS ANGELES (AFP) – Iraq war drama "The Hurt Locker" has been engulfed by controversy in the final sprint to the Oscars finishing line but should still win the coveted best picture prize at the awards extravaganza, analysts said Sunday.

The gritty independent film about a US army bomb disposal unit in Baghdad had emerged as the overwhelming favorite to win the top honor at next Sunday's 82nd Academy Awards after winning a string of other honors this year.

However the film's relentless procession towards best picture has been jolted in the past few days after it emerged that one of the movie's producers, Nicolas Chartier, had broken strict rules concerning negative campaigning.

Chartier could face censure from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences after sending emails to swathes of Oscar voters urging them to vote for "The Hurt Locker" instead of a "500-million-dollar film."

Chartier's emails was seen as a direct attack on a best picture rival, James Cameron's big-budget science-fiction blockbuster "Avatar" -- a clear breach of Academy rules which forbid negative campaigning.

Frenchman Chartier was forced to issue an embarrassing apology for his initial email, describing it as "inappropriate and stupid."

"My email to you was out of line and not in the spirit of the celebration of cinema that this acknowledgement is," Chartier wrote. "I was even more wrong, both personally and professionally, to ask for your help in encouraging others to vote for the film and to comment on another movie.

"As passionate as I am about the film we made, this was an extremely inappropriate email to send, and something that the Academy strongly disapproves of in the rules.

"My naivete, ignorance of the rules and plain stupidity as a first time nominee is not an excuse for this behavior and I strongly regret it."

A spokeswoman for the Academy declined to comment on what action -- if any -- might be taken against Chartier.

Analysts have speculated that sanctions could range from withholding tickets to the Oscars show for individuals connected to the film all the way to the nuclear option of eliminating the film from the best picture race.

Pundits however are skeptical that the controversy will adversely impact "The Hurt Locker's" Oscars hopes, noting that the furore erupted only days before Tuesday's 5:00pm deadline for final ballots.

"When it's this late in the game, most of the ballots or a good percentage of them will be in," said Pete Hammond, Maxim magazine film critic and an awards season expert with the Los Angeles Times.

"It takes time for a story like this to permeate into the Academy. Will it have any effect? I doubt it. The bottom line is I think people still tend to vote for the film they like the best."

Veteran Oscarologist Tom O'Neil, from the Los Angeles Times's theenvelope.com agreed.

"I'd say around three-quarters of the ballots were done by the time this broke," O'Neil told AFP. "The widespread consensus is that 'The Hurt Locker' has it in the bag and that even these issues aren't going to trip it up."

This year's Oscars, which take place at the Kodak Theater, will see eight other films vying for best picture along with "Avatar" and "The Hurt Locker."

Other nominees include South Africa's acclaimed science-fiction thriller "District 9," Pixar's animated "Up", sports drama "The Blind Side," and Quentin Tarantino's World War II revenge fantasy "Inglourious Basterds."

Recession-era drama "Up In the Air" is also nominated along with low budget films including "An Education," "Precious" and "A Serious Man."

Like the best picture race, clear favorites have emerged across most of the other major categories.

Kathryn Bigelow is widely expected to become the first woman in Oscars history to win the best director prize for her work on "The Hurt Locker," while Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock are poised to take the top acting awards.

Bridges, 60, is expected to win for his portrayal of an alcoholic country singer trying to rebuild his life in the drama "Crazy Heart" while Bullock is the favorite to edge out Meryl Streep for her performance in "The Blind Side."

"It looks as if all the top award races are locked in now," said O'Neil. "It looks like there will be virtually no suspense.

"Usually you can feel the rumblings of a possible upset at this stage. But there's been nothing like that so far."
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Pubrick

To Protect James Cameron's Feelings, Sacha Baron Cohen's Avatar Sketch Is Cut From Oscar Telecast

    * 3/2/10 at 5:37 PM

NYmag


Just a week ago, Sacha Baron Cohen — the alter ego of Borat and Brüno — was announced as an Oscar presenter by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Now, suddenly, Baron Cohen has vanished from that list. Why is he gone from the show? Because one of the broadcast's producers was scared he might offend gazillionaire Best Director nominee James Cameron.

An insider familiar with the Oscar telecast tells Vulture that an Avatar sketch planned by Baron Cohen and Ben Stiller was nixed yesterday by show producer Bill Mechanic, who worried that Cameron would be so offended by it that he might even walk out of the Oscar broadcast on live TV.

So what skit could possibly so incense the HMFIC?

Our insider informs us that Baron Cohen planned to appear onstage as a blue-skinned, female Na'vi, with Stiller translating "her" interplanetary speech. As the skit went on, though, it would become clear that Stiller wasn't translating properly, because Cohen would grow ever more upset. At its climax, an infuriated Baron Cohen would pull open "her" evening gown to reveal that s/he was pregnant, knocked up with Cameron's love child, and would go on to confront her baby daddy as if s/he were on Jerry Springer.

Mechanic, now both a producer of motion pictures and of this year's Oscar telecast, was head of Twentieth Century Fox when Cameron's Titanic famously went massively over budget and over schedule, so he's well acquainted with Cameron's sense of humor — or lack of it. "Let's just say that Cameron isn't known to be, shall we say, 'self-deprecating,'" explained one insider familiar with the decision to cut the sketch.

Academy spokesperson Toni Thompson would only confirm that Baron Cohen was no longer presenting, but Baron Cohen's spokesman, Matt Labov, tells Vulture that "I hate to use the term, because it's so ubiquitous, but there were 'creative differences.' Nothing acrimonious, but both sides felt that since they couldn't agree, [Cohen] might as well remain in London." (Calls to Mechanic's office were not returned at deadline.)

So in case you're ranking celebrity senses of humor at home, you can now safely put Cameron below Eminem.


--
FOLLOWUP:

James Cameron to Oscars: Go Ahead and Make Fun of Me

Wed., Mar. 3, 2010 10:27 PM PST by Cristina Gibson
eOnline

At least one person wouldn't mind an Avatar spoof at the Academy Awards this Sunday.

James Cameron.

The Oscar-nominated director told me this exclusively tonight at the Global Green party at Avalon. Cameron said he wasn't aware that a proposed Avatar sketch involving Ben Stiller and Sacha Baron Cohen had been cut from the show, presumably to avoid upsetting the director.

"I don't know anything about that...I don't produce the Oscars. If they want to poke fun at Avatar Sunday, that's OK by me," said Cameron.

As far as he's concerned, he told me, jokes are just another element of Hollywood's big night. And he's fine with it.

"The Oscars are a celebration of movies...even the gaffes and out-of-bounds stuff are all part of the fun."


---------------------


sounds like he stole the sketch from the treehouse of horror episode where marge is impregnated by Kang (or Kodos):


under the paving stones.

©brad

^hah!

So everyone needs to take 15 minutes and watch Logorama which is nominated for best animated short. It's pretty inspired, very funny, and Ronald McDonald fights the Michelin Man with a machine gun.

matt35mm

Yes, Logorama is fantastic.  I've seen all the nominated shorts, which are all quite good, and it's clear that Logorama ought to win (this coming from a big Wallace & Gromit fan!).  It's images that we know, shown in ways that we never thought we'd see.  That's partly because it doesn't even seem legal to show some of this stuff; I have no idea how the makers aren't getting sued 1000 times over.  Perfectly done and absolutely hilarious.

Pubrick

ok i watched Logorama and i gotta say it's pretty entertaining but has some flaws that really put me off. i'll get to that in a second but first i wanna point out that the credit listed in the original nominations post is wrong, according to the full credits on imdb there is no one by the name Nicolas Schmerkin involved in the film.

Quote from: MacGuffin on February 02, 2010, 07:50:24 AM
"Logorama" Nicolas Schmerkin

for what it's worth, it seems to be a french production, much like a lot of the other finalists. below i've posted links to all the shorts i could find online.. and my review of each.

ANIMATED


8min.
this is actually a better film than Logorama. its look is not simply gimmicky, it's extremely clever. there's a great use of a mirror wall to build tension and to do something that could only be done easily in animation since there is no actual camera there. the only flaw it has which is common to most short films is a predictable ending. even so, i'm pretty sure this is a incisive commentary on the modern financial system. this excellent overtone makes it timely and in a way similar to what Logorama is trying to accomplish but achieved much more simply and without the unnecessary recourse to excessive foul language.


6min
quite funny but cannot escape the flaw i mentioned above about predicatibility. short films are all about the punchline, and here the major achievement is only portraying an amusing old granny character who is batshit crazy and ruining this kid's nights. this was evident from the first freakout and by the end it needed something extra -- maybe it should have been established that the kid has not slept in many days since his granny started visiting. i mean, in short films like in anything there doesn't have to be meaning.. but if there is some substance to the story or theme it makes it a step above a mere "calling card" for directors who want to move onto bigger things. that's all this is unfortunately.

8min
see this film has meaning. it's one joke of course that is beyond literally realised in the tug of war between the doctor and death, but it's interesting in that it switches the roles quite naturally. the doctor is trying to prevent death (for his own benefit) and death is trying to prevent suffering (for the old woman's benefit). it's as profound as a short film needs to be, it's one point, it's one idea that is covered easily and comprehensively in this short. i hate predictable use of music but there's no time to waste in short films so We Meet Again (TWO VERSIONS!) is passable but really pushing the limit of what's allowed.


Logorama 16min
great great great idea. but why do they have to swear so much? i know, cbrad and everyone who doesn't have a problem with this kind of stuff will easily defend it, it works and most of all its COOL. i mean this is what i hate about Quentin Tarantino, and his influence is the worst part of this film. it takes his pop sensibilities to an excellent and logical limit but it feels so forced when characters randomly say fuck and shit for no reason at all, i mean that kid and the cops, their dialogue sometimes just consists of a random "fuck" just to remind ppl that this movie is COOL.

the oil flood makes no sense, and i only recognized maybe 100 out of the thousand brands that were used. it's the biggest case of "calling card" short film you could possibly make. it's the director saying hey look i KNOW BRANDS, i can use them in a narrative.. sort of.

Wallace and Gromit: A Matter of Loaf and Death 29min
this is such a classic timeless style that everytime i see a wallace and gromit film i cannot ever remember when it was made. this one is hilarious as to be expected and the story is TIGHT.. and best of all, no excessive cool bullshit! it wins its audience with CHARM and CLASS, something that is very rare these days. it's what Pixar has, and dreamworks doesn't. i saw this on TV and i never expected to find it online, but the link i've posted is actually the exact showing i saw on australian tv.. cool!

it's the deserved winner out of sheer talent and all the good commedable things i've mentioned, but it suffers from familiarity. if Logorama wins i won't be suprised. dark horse is definitely French Roast.


LIVE ACTION

The Door 16min
DO NOT WATCH - WHAT A WASTE OF TIME. no, this isn't a sequel to THE ROOM, that might be worth watching. it's about a family that has been evacuated form a chernobyl-type disaster zone and i guess they are all going to die. one of them dies and is buried and the movie ends. ok great, dedicated to or based on a true story apparently.. not much of interest at all, very slow. it's russian, but it's no Stalker.

(trailer only)
looks funny in a napoleon dynamite kinda way. trailer is thousad times more watchable than THE DOOR.

(trailer only)
looks emotionally wrenching. makes the next film look like a piece of shit, since it looks like a believable story of a child in danger and with real problems to overcome. if anyone can find this and the above film i'd really appreciate it.

Miracle Fish 17min
directed by this australian dude who works with Blue Tongue films, which made that bob dylan video recently where there's a house party.. meaningless and pointless intro to a meaningless and pointless film. i don't get it.. it fails in the casting stage where you have a story -- like MANY short films -- that rely on the acting ability of a little boy. the kid here is completely out of it, which i guess they thought would serve the story since it's about a kid alone at school after something mysterious has happened.. and then the ending is useless, there is no way in hell any kid or adult or conscious person would react like that especially after the money shot.

i get what they were trying to do, they were trying to establish some kind of tone where abstract ideas can work with marginal relation to real events. the thing is the real events don't add up.. is that what the character means when he keeps repeating the line about 65 cents? i hate short films that use coarse or extreme imagery or language as a shortcut to some kind of emotion.. this is guilty of all of the above.. and the emotion is murky at best. total fail from my country.

(trailer only)
this looks heavy handed and no more than an actors showcase. dude wants to work in films, whoever he is, someone hire him already so he doesn't keep making what looks like completely boring shorts about ppl "on the edge". sheesh, have some imagination! be interesting! be fun without appeasing meat heads and artistic without appeasing pretentious jerks! that's my wishlist.

winner of live action: probly Kavi or Abracadabra cos the rest look miserable.
under the paving stones.

pete

I wish I could like logorama because cbrad, I hate to be that guy who dislikes what you dislike and have you be all folksy about it and say something like, I dunno what's wrong with you guys can't you like anything.
to me, it felt like family guy meets scary movies.  scary movies because it just references one thing after another without any clear punchline or thought.  family guy because it just takes something we've seen before as cute and turn it into an elaborate action movie.  It's also like every art opening I've been to when some guy makes some sculpture out of optimus prime and his friends can't believe how crazy he is.
I mean, people like Frederic Back have won the animated shorts category, this feels like something someone did at animation school.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

matt35mm

I know I can't convince anybody that it's funny if they didn't think so, but I'd like to discuss a bit of how I understood Logorama.  I see it as a satire of American action movies of a particular sort, especially after Tarantino's influence, such that all the profanity is not meant to be cool, but to make fun of movies that do this to be cool (and the introduction of the cops talking about zoos is a reference to the banality of the Royale with Cheese scene in Pulp Fiction).  A lot of what made me laugh was how spot on it was regarding the way that action movies are constructed, from the screenplay to how it was shot and edited.  I think that part of the point is that it is 100% derivative, which for me built effectively into being overwhelmed by all these things that I recognized, simply in the plot and construction of the film, independent of the logos.

From there, the world of logos do link smoothly into the idea of being overwhelmed by all these things that I recognize.  This may have varying effects on different audience members, depending on how many of the logos you recognize.  The effect that it had on me was surprise over how much I did recognize.  Unlike P, I felt like there were only a few that I didn't recognize.

Obviously, one of the main ideas of Logorama is how these corporate logos make up our world now--they're everywhere.  I also felt that it was appropriate that all of the characters were also logos, because the majority of characters in mainstream American movies have "types," rather than being someone recognizably human.  Every single character in Logorama was a clear reference to a "type" of character in these sorts of movies.

For me, the logos worked beyond being a clever gimmick, because toward the end I became frightened at the idea of how dense my experience of the world is with memorable marketing.  It wasn't so much a lesson--I am logically aware of the influence of the many corporations, large and small, that are not only constantly selling to me, but already have sold me the modern living experience--it was a strong image that grew into something scary.  There are only going to be more and more logos eeking their way into our consciousness, and it becomes not ridiculous that nearly every thing will be branded and associated with corporations.  How far can we go in that direction before it changes what we are in relation to our environment, before we, too, build ourselves up into only being an instantly recognizable thing?  Doesn't that already happen?  Again, I don't think it's that the film teaches a lesson or that these are new ideas, but I feel that the imagery is effective and relevant to my own quest of figuring out my relationship to all these things around me.  I've talked about these ideas before, but I've never had such a clear visceral experience about these ideas.

The earthquake made sense to me on an intuitive level--wanting to see this logo-world destroyed.  The film takes place in L.A., where an earthquake of incredible magnitude is guaranteed to hit any time within the next few decades... could be today, could be 50 years from now, so why not during a shootout with Ronald McDonald?  There's also the obvious thing of nature vs. human-made stuff, and nature always wins.  That said, I couldn't tell you why the whole universe was made out of logos.  Maybe that was the filmmakers being too cute.  Or maybe I've overestimated the entire movie and it was never meant to be anything other than cute.  But I'm sticking with what I've said.

Finally, I didn't feel like it was a calling card film, though it may have been.  Most of that is because I watched the film wondering how they got away with using all these logos, and having read that the film was made over the course of four years by a small "French collective," I imagined that this was a gleeful "fuck you" to the notion of copyrighted logos.  I don't think this stuff falls under fair use, as I think that trademarked images count as intellectual property and that some of the stuff in this film could be seen by the companies as actionable slander (Ronald McDonald shooting people and kicking a child in the head).  I'm really not sure about the legality of it all, but it thrilled me to think that the filmmakers were just willfully breaking the law.

After I watched it, I read that the filmmakers are a French graphic design collective called H5... the very kind of people that companies would hire to create logos.  That doesn't really take away from the film, because there's nothing about the film to suggest that they want you to think that logos are bad.  Their notion that a logo-dense universe is simultaneously funny (because it's true) and scary (... because it's true) works for me.  I guess I didn't feel like it was a calling card film because it was made over 4 years by a group of people regarding something that was intimately connected with what they work with.  I think of calling card films as movies made without any passion or ideas by film students that really just wanted to get hired to do a feature, so they wouldn't put anything like 4 years into it, and I did feel like Logorama was a whole thing unto itself.  It felt more like "we made this thing," than "please hire us to make your thing."

As a side note, they consulted with David Fincher and Andrew Kevin Walker (writer of Seven) regarding movie conventions.  Walker ended up doing some uncredited writing on the script, I think, and Walker and Fincher are the voices of the two Pringles guys.

Pas

I wish I could like logorama because pete, I hate to be that guy who dislikes what you dislike.  :yabbse-smiley:

©brad

Quote from: pete on March 05, 2010, 01:04:59 AM
I wish I could like logorama because cbrad, I hate to be that guy who dislikes what you dislike and have you be all folksy about it and say something like, I dunno what's wrong with you guys can't you like anything.

Well I often hate myself for being that guy because it's such a lame, lazy argument. "If you don't love this thing I hate you!" Hah, whatever cbrad.

P I have a similar disdain for excessive use of profanity pretty much in general. It's particular annoying on a lot of the HBO/Showtime stuff because you get the feeling they're using it as a crutch, or doing it because they can and after a while it just comes off crass. "Fuck" is a word that cuts, that when used properly can knock you on your ass but when you use it 6200 times in a 60 minute show or screenplay, it dilutes its power. In regards to Logorama, I think the reason I found the cussing pretty funny is that unlike the crude little bastards on family guy and south park, these brand mascots are avatars for corporate purity, and they put up a pretense of companies being all clean and wholesome. For someone who once sat through a 18-page powerpoint presentation solely on what the jolly green giant was allowed and not allowed to say, and who once got yelled at by a brand director for suggesting we put a little straw hat on the pillsbury doughboy ("you can't make the doughboy look like a hippie!") watching these little guys curse and smoke and shoot each other up was kind of a dream come true.

Logorama suffers for me in its length. I'm not sure the "plot" warrants a 16-minute run time, as you kind of get the point after the first few minutes. I will say it is pretty scary when you think about how they really weren't exaggerating that much. LA and parts of New York City really do look like that. And per my nonsensical rant on advertising a while back, not only are we visually polluting our cities but we're also eroding the collective mental health of the world. Am I the only one who had a headache at the end of this?

(P thanks for posting the other nominations and for your reviews by the way. Now I have something to do this afternoon!)



RegularKarate

Watched most of P's links.  Thanks, P!

I agree with a lot of what P said with the animated shorts (I didn't watch all of the live action).  Logorama is good and it's impressive from a visual standpoint, but boy is it not funny.
And I'm sorry Matt, I don't buy all of what you're putting on this thing.  I don't buy that the dialogue is atrocious and unfunny on purpose.  I can buy that it's intentionally bad movie conventions, but the jokes are so obviously trying to be real jokes that you actually laugh at and they're just really forced and dull and the only jokes that work are the purely visual ones.
Anyway, the dialog ruins it.  Even when you ignore the obnoxiously excessive cursing.

I can't see the Wallace and Gromit link, but I totally believe it's the best one since W&G are always just super charming shorts.

Outside of W&G, I'd say French Roast is the best for all the reasons P lists.  The only thing that takes away from it is how Pixar-y it feels.

Granny Grimm was a snooze to me.  The fairy-tale parts have some enjoyable colors and designs, but the 3D section is super dull.  I don't buy the old woman's voice... it feels too strained... it's cold and poorly acted.  That and it just wasn't funny to me.

Lady and the Reaper was super fun.  I love a good cartoon chase, one that's swift and constantly surprises you with its cartoon logic.  I like that the story was sweet yet dark.  Second place after French Roast (not including W&G in the list since I didn't see it).

Pas

so strange that the some of the most thought out posts in weeks/months on this board have been on (relatively stupid) animated shorts  :yabbse-huh:

there's this huge shorts festival near my hometown, it's getting really popular. All around Quebec for the last 10 years it's been all about shorts when it comes to festivals. I never understood what people like about them. They always seem longer than a real movie to me. You'll watch a film and if it's boring you start to look at the time after 20 minutes minimum. A short, you can easily check the time at 1 minute because you're already bored out of your mind.

The worst are those where there's barely any dialogue or music or anything going on, and that's like 99% of them.

matt35mm

RK, I can definitely see your point, because I can't argue that the jokes are actually well written.  I guess the simple fact that the dialogue was coming out of these corporate logos was enough to make me laugh.  I don't really know how to argue whether something is funny or unfunny.  I just kept thinking that the point was maximum derivation that was mashed up and shown in a way I hadn't thought of before, and this idea just really made me laugh, and also made me think the most as to why I was laughing.

I understand the comparisons to Family Guy, which is also a completely derivative show, but I can't really explain why Family Guy doesn't make me laugh while Logorama does.  I tried to explain why it made me laugh, somewhat, but I guess I didn't really succeed.  Not once did I think that the writing was good, but I did think that practically every line was something that would be in one of those lousy action movies, so in a weird way I just kept thinking: "They sure did nail that terrible dialogue!"  Something about the irony of that idea made me laugh.  But that's such a delicate source of humor that I could also believe that it was just genuinely bad dialogue.  Whatever the intent was, though, it did make me think of all that stuff that I discussed in my previous post.

I'm also beginning to feel bad that I dismissed Wallace & Gromit.  I haven't seen it for over a year, when it first aired on BBC over Christmas 2008.  I remember loving it.

French Roast is also really great.  Other than Granny Grimm, which was mildly amusing to me, I really liked all of them and would like to talk about them, but I spent way too much energy talking about Logorama to parse out my ideas right now, and I also have some work to do.

RegularKarate

Quote from: Pas Rap on March 05, 2010, 12:35:39 PM
so strange that the some of the most thought out posts in weeks/months on this board have been on (relatively stupid) animated shorts  :yabbse-huh:

Give me a break, Pas. 

First, you say that these are all "relatively stupid".  This tells me you discounted them immediately before even watching them (did you?).  These all (even the ones people don't like as much) have a LOT put into them. 

You're also basically saying you don't get why people like short films.  That seems like a very ridiculous thing to say.  Why do you like ANY films?  Obviously the majority of movies suck so that percentage is going to apply to shorts as well.

Fernando

thanks to cbrad for starting this and p for following brilliantly. that along with some of the comments put this thread on another level, it would be great if posting the shorts ppl find becomes a trend every year so we can discover/discuss them.

haven't seen all, so far i liked logorama, lady and the reaper, french roast.

wallace and gromit was adorable and at the perfect length, i love that they didn't try to stretch that idea to make a feature and cash in.