The Hurt Locker?

I’m not a big movie award guy. For the most part, I couldn’t care less who wins the Oscar for best film or best director or anything, but I do have a problem with this year’s selections. The Hurt Locker won the award for the year’s best film. I thought the movie was pretty good and all, but how do you give the award to any other movie than the movie that has grossed more money than any other film in history? Avatar has made well over a billion dollars already and by the time it is done, it could be up in the 2 billion dollar neighborhood. The public has voted; they consider this the best movie of all time. Now wait, I know what you’re going to say… You’re going to spiel off some sort of line about the Academy Awards being for the best movie and not the most popular and that the art of the movie is more important than revenue. Fine, if you want to pretend like this is the case, The Hurt Locker should not have been the choice. What about Inglorious Basterds? Or Precious (and no, I am not typing out that whole stupid name!)? I mean, if you are going to use the art value argument, you can’t possibly tell me The Hurt Locker was better art than either of these two films, can you? For that matter, Avatar, even for being a sci-fi flick, had a better story line that The Hurt Locker. I have no dog in this hunt, Avatar didn’t really appeal to me personally, but a movie that takes 10 years to create and sells that many tickets cannot be ignored. I have to wonder what the idiots are thinking that pick these awards. I shouldn’t be surprised, the AFI considers Citizen Kane to be the best movie of all time and it was a colossal pile of crap...