Over the years the Academy Awards have bestowed the Best Picture gong on some truly worthy picture, yes I agree that some rubbish have got the Oscar too, but The Hurt Locker joins the upper echelons of fine filmmaking.
But the big question on everyone's lips is just how did David slay the mighty Goliath? And was it really that big of a surprise that The Hurt Locker walked away triumphant on Sunday night?
Lets face it Best Film and Best Director was always going to be a two horse race between gritty Iraq drama The Hurt Locker and the record breaking & groundbreaking 3D fest that was Avatar, no other movie of filmmaker stood a chance of spoiling the party.
Despite being critically acclaimed when released The Hurt Locker had the odds majorly stacked against it; no major names, didn't do well at the American box office and of course it's about Iraq.
Unless you have been asleep for the last couple of years there has been a growing trend of war on terror movies not doing overly well at the box office, not doing well is a bit of an understatement they have performed very poorly.
These war movies have all had an agenda or tried to portray a particular story or been drowning in politics.
This is what The Hurt Locker had in its favour it was a very human story that focused on the personal experiences of the elite bomb squad.
It didn't paint the Iraqi people as the enemy, Kathryn Bigelow didn't produce a piece of propaganda or deliver a movie with a political message it's a film about what the soldiers faced while they were out there.
And this is what is so great about The Hurt Locker it's a piece of entertainment, yes it's set in circumstances that we have all become very familiar with, but it never tries to influence your view on the war or tell you the filmmakers opinion.
All we do find out from Bigelow is that she has the highest regard and deepest respect for the men and women who are currently fighting for their country.
Kathryn Bigelow is also a big factor in winning the Oscar as she becomes the first woman to ever win Best Director.
Now I'm not suggesting that they just gave the awards out willy nilly because she is a woman, she is a filmmaker who deserves every accolade that has come her way, but it seems that the Academy couldn't resist the chance to make a little piece of history.
The fact that the movie only took $14.7 million at the U.S. box office, compared with Avatar's $720.6 million, is irrelevant as the Academy famously ignores the box office.
Nine times of ten the Oscars recognises the smaller movies with the blockbusters really being overlooked, we all know that The Dark Knight should have been nominated in the Best Picture category last year!
It's a fact that the blockbuster is usually ignored at the Oscars, it took Lord of the Rings three attempts to win Best Picture; are you telling me that Chicago was a better movie that The Two Towers?
Return of the King and Titanic are the only blockbusters to have landed the Best Picture prize.
There is no doubt that Avatar is a groundbreaking movie that will change the way we watch 3D cinema, just look at how well Alice In Wonderland has done at the global box office this weekend, and is a true cinematic achievement.
Despite this could it be argued that the Academy is just not ready to reward this type of movie? I have no doubt that the 3D movie will get the recognition that it deserves sooner or later but the movie that paves the way perhaps doesn't always get the rewards that it deserves.
Many argued that Zoe Saldana should have received a nod for her work as Na'vi princess Neytiri despite the fact that her character was created using performance capture and Saldana herself never appears on the big screen, the same could be said of Andy Serkis in The Lord of the Rings.
While, there is no doubt, that more and more movies will go down this path perhaps the Academy would still rather reward an actor's performance rather than an actor's creation, however incorrect that may be.
But at the end of the day 2009 brought movie fans two amazing movies that were both completely different from what we had seen before.
And while I admit to punching the air as Kathryn Bigelow and her movie made that little bit of history Avatar is a film that would have equally been deserving of that success, James Cameron is talking of a sequel and that did work for The Lord of the Rings!
FemaleFirst Helen Earnshaw
Tagged in Avatar