Empire Awards 2010 - Winners

JP Liz V1

Best Film presented by Sony
Avatar
Star Trek
District 9
Inglourious Basterds
The Hurt Locker

Best Actor presented by Citroën
Sir Michael Caine (Harry Brown)
Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
Robert Pattinson (New Moon)
Sam Worthington (Avatar)
Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes)

Best Actress
Anne-Marie Duff (Nowhere Boy)
Carey Mulligan (An Education)
Zoe Saldana (Avatar)
Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria)
Melanie Laurent (Inglourious Basterds)

Best Director
James Cameron (Avatar)
Neil Blomkamp (District 9)
JJ Abrams (Star Trek)
Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds)
Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)

Best British Film
Harry Brown
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
An Education
Nowhere Boy
In The Loop

Best Comedy
In The Loop
A Serious Man
The Hangover
Up In The Air
The Men Who Stare At Goats

Best Horror
Let The Right One In
Paranormal Activity
Zombieland
Thirst
Drag Me To Hell

Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Moon
Star Trek
Avatar
District 9
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus

Best Thriller
Harry Brown
Public Enemies
Inglourious Basterds
The Hurt Locker
Sherlock Holmes

Best Newcomer
Carey Mulligan (An Education)
Aaron Johnson (Nowhere Boy)
Sharlto Copley (District 9)
Anna Kendrick (Up In The Air/New Moon)
Katie Jarvis (Fish Tank)

Empire Icon - Ian McKellen

Outstanding Contribution To British Film - Ray Winstone

ziedth

All but maybe one it or two of these I would disagree with.

Zapp Brannigan

Avatar, best film. That certainly is reasonable...

Skerries

what i would regard as a Thriller i would put Harry Brown as the winner as i wouldn't consider Inglourious Basterds or Sherlock Holmes as thrillers per se
and as good as Let the right one in is i would consider paranormal activity to be a better "horror" in that it actually messes with your emotions
Avatar is a tour de force in CG but because the story is derivative i wouldn't have put it as the best film

Tusky

Robert Pattinson gets a nomination but Sam Rockwell doesnt ?

Handsome Bob

Wow, my brother really is right, Empire just appeal to the masses and have zero credibility.

Bodhidharma

Empire was a great mag years ago, but has essentially sold its soul for access to the bigger stars. The awards last night show that again, Sherlock Holmes best thriller and Jude Law got the "Empire hero award", both of these are completley ludicrous and it wouldn't surprise me if they had to create an award for Jude Law to turn up. The words 'Jude' 'Law' and 'Hero' dont belong in the same sentence.

Andy Serkis got the "Empire inspiration award", what the hell does that mean? Zoe Saldana winning a best actress award was equally ridiculous.

Basically its one of the crapper award shows in my opinion.

Empire stopped being relevant about 15 years ago. They've turned into bigger whores than Harry Knowles and will get on their knees and fellate anyone who offers them a set visit or free hat. Their reviews are more inconsistent than Paul Ross's and their features read like the work of two bit hacks.

Did anyone else spot the massive discrepancy in two of the categories. Avatar wins best film beatign Star Trek yet Star Trek beats it in the best sci fi/fantasy category. How the hell does that work?

Evac105

It has to be pointed out that the majority of the Empire awards were decided by web vote so it's more the people who vote in it then Empire themselves you want to criticise

Did some more research and the nominees are provided by Empire but, as I already said, the actual winners were decided by web based voting.

Evac105

Evac105 wrote: »

It has to be pointed out that the majority of the Empire awards were decided by web vote so it's more the people who vote in it then Empire themselves you want to criticise

Did some more research and the nominees are provided by Empire but, as I already said, the actual winners were decided by web based voting.

Nah we can still criticise Empire for the piss poor tabloid-esque travesty it has became.

Web based voting is iffy at best, I'm sure Empire catered the results to guarantee that the bigger stars would be there. Looking at the nominees it's a typical British love in but then again the BAFTAS are as bad as are the IFTAS. The Empire awards make the Oscars look fair and balanced, at least there's some variety in the nominations and as bad as the Oscars get they would never in a million years rate Robert Pattension's performance in New Moon as one of the years best. And where the hell is UP? It was one of last years, sorry last decades greatest cinematic experience.

Evac105

Not arguing that point (since I sympathise to an extent with it) but people in this thread were criticising the winners of various awards and placing the blame on Empire itself when the blame belongs somewhere else

Have to say I've attended the two (so far) MovieCon's in the UK that Empire have organised and had a ball at both, so they're not entirely evil

pixelburp

What is this? The MTV movie awards list? Good gravy that's an awful line up of nominees & winners. The "thriller" list ... well, isn't. That Moon & District 9 lost out to Lensflare Trek is just depressing. The masses suck.

chin_grin

I hate Empire. Hate them so much!

Yes, I'm actually saying that they are indeed a farce to be reckoned with.

dr.bollocko

Empire is trash that panders to idiots. Muck. Hate the thing.

abouttobebanned

Can't argue with the best comedy award.

Peyton Manning

Zombieland in the Best Horror category? Up In The Air in the Best Comedy?

Jesus Christ, you think as a film magazine they'd actually watch the f*cking things....

fitz0

The ONLY one ther I agree with is Christopher Waltz as Best Actor. He is the only good thing about that film.

I don't get the love for IB, it starts well, yes, but loses all momentum less than halfway through. The only scene I see as being noteworthy is Waltz's opening scene in the farm house.

Evac105

Have to agree - felt the first section was amazing well done. The suspense and tension were built magnificently and I thought it was a return to the originality of Reservoir Dogs, then it went straight back to self indulgent cliché checking

IvySlayer

Archimedes wrote: »

Zombieland in the Best Horror category? Up In The Air in the Best Comedy?

Jesus Christ, you think as a film magazine they'd actually watch the f*cking things....

Up In The Air was a funny movie

Cactus Colm

I love when the Empire awards winners are revealed, or when they release a top 100 list, or best in the world ever type stuff. The thread is almost instantly filled with comments about Empire being too populist / only appeals to the masses etc, etc.

I'm not disagreeing with that by any means. They are populist, they do try to appeal to the masses, but I fail to understand why exactly that's a bad thing. It doesn't cater to your niche needs, tough luck. That it mostly concentrates on the films people want to see isn't really surprising. The back story is (for me) usually the highlight of the magazine, but most of the time the other stories/articles/interviews/features are interesting and do a decent job at being informative/entertaining.

I could mention Neon (and to a lesser degree Hotdog) and half the people reading will spunk themselves with the memory (me included Neon was fantastic). But there's a reason those magazines failed, it's damn hard to produce a relevant film magazine that people want to read, and that can sustain itself. Empire succeeds more than it fails, and for that we should be thankful.

Maybe it's better to regard it as a gateway magazine, for those on the peripheries of becoming a real film junkie. Giving just enough information about less mainstream films to maybe get people interested. I thought they certainly did a good job in bringing Moon to people's attention.

Cactus Colm

Cactus Colm wrote: »

I love when the Empire awards winners are revealed, or when they release a top 100 list, or best in the world ever type stuff. The thread is almost instantly filled with comments about Empire being too populist / only appeals to the masses etc, etc.

I'm not disagreeing with that by any means. They are populist, they do try to appeal to the masses, but I fail to understand why exactly that's a bad thing. It doesn't cater to your niche needs, tough luck. That it mostly concentrates on the films people want to see isn't really surprising. The back story is (for me) usually the highlight of the magazine, but most of the time the other stories/articles/interviews/features are interesting and do a decent job at being informative/entertaining.

I could mention Neon (and to a lesser degree Hotdog) and half the people reading will spunk themselves with the memory (me included Neon was fantastic). But there's a reason those magazines failed, it's damn hard to produce a relevant film magazine that people want to read, and that can sustain itself. Empire succeeds more than it fails, and for that we should be thankful.

No one has a problem with them covering main stream cinema, the problem is that they have turned into a tabloid. Invite Empire on your set or give them a free mug and you can pretty much guarantee at least a 4 star review. Their features too are a joke, ffs how many times have they had a Star Wars special, at least once a year.

Any awards which ranks Robert Pattinson's performance in New Moon as one of the years best is taking the piss. Total Film has long been regarded as the lads mag version of Empire but in recent years it has surpassed Empire.

Cactus Colm

Deleted User wrote: »

No one has a problem with them covering main stream cinema, the problem is that they have turned into a tabloid. Invite Empire on your set or give them a free mug and you can pretty much guarantee at least a 4 star review. Their features too are a joke, ffs how many times have they had a Star Wars special, at least once a year.

Having a quick look through their covers, Star Wars hasn't appeared on a cover (bar the 500 greatest films of all time issue in august 2008, which was an issue released with about 100 different covers, so wouldn't count that). So judging by the covers, it was July 2007 when they last had a star wars special.

Picking just one film that was featured on a cover, so I'm sure featured a set visit or two. Sherlock Holmes recieved just 3 stars, which I would have thought was a bit harsh for a very enjoyable movie. Roger Ebert rated The Hitcher (the original not the remake) with 0 stars. He gave 2012 a 4 star rating (his highest), while empire gave it 3.

Some films getting rated higher than you think they should, some lower, that is the nature of reviews. It's one persons opinion, that you don't have to agree with.

It might be light entertainment, but calling it tabloid is just silliness.

Anyway, lets not argue.

Cactus Colm

Cactus Colm wrote: »

Having a quick look through their covers, Star Wars hasn't appeared on a cover (bar the 500 greatest films of all time issue in august 2008, which was an issue released with about 100 different covers, so wouldn't count that). So judging by the covers, it was July 2007 when they last had a star wars special.

Picking just one film that was featured on a cover, so I'm sure featured a set visit or two. Sherlock Holmes recieved just 3 stars, which I would have thought was a bit harsh for a very enjoyable movie. Roger Ebert rated The Hitcher (the original not the remake) with 0 stars. He gave 2012 a 4 star rating (his highest), while empire gave it 3.

Some films getting rated higher than you think they should, some lower, that is the nature of reviews. It's one persons opinion, that you don't have to agree with.

It might be light entertainment, but calling it tabloid is just silliness.

Anyway, lets not argue.

I didn't say covers I said features on them, check again andf you'll find a few. Also you can't compare Ebert to Empire, Ebert takes every film on it's own merits and when reviewing he compares like with like. His 4 stars for 2012 is not the same as his 4 star review of another film in a different genre. Empire's 3 star is in line with their reviews, I don't recall Roland Ememrich giving them a tour of the set anytime.

3 stars for Holmes is what most gave it, in fact many reviewers gave it less. Holmes was not a great film, it was mediocre at best. Look at all the nominations the magazine gave it in their awards, yet Up didn't get any.

Hank_Jones

This just proves what I've known for years.

It's a rag, has been for a long time.

I honestly can't believe that I actually used to buy it...
I feel so dirty..


http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=10354

http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/19577/1/EXCLUSIVE-WHAT-WENT-WRONG-WITH-TERMINATOR-SALVATION/Page1.html

Check out the name of the reviewers on both...

rgt320q

Wow, if these awards results are at all indicative of the magazine's content nowadays, I guess it's actually good I quit reading it a few years back.

Duggy747

I don't agree with a few there, District 9 should've conquered Best Film as I found it to the most suprising and enjoyable film of last year. Avatar was techincally brilliant but had a cack story which undermines the film as a whole, District 9 was fantastic with a relatively shoe-string budget.

I agree with Empire being shìtty now, I used to buy that mag all the time before the reviews became too biased and arse-kissy. The features used to be fantastic.

I still enjoy Total Film's humour, though.

Sleazus

Cactus Colm wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with that by any means. They are populist, they do try to appeal to the masses, but I fail to understand why exactly that's a bad thing. It doesn't cater to your niche needs, tough luck. That it mostly concentrates on the films people want to see isn't really surprising.

Yes, but popular does not equal good. Hell, in movie terms, popular does not even equal well liked.

As an example, Transformers 2 is a popular film, but I reckon more people enjoyed Inglourious Basterds. After people forked over their money, a huge majority left Transformers 2 complaining. Even factoring in the box office difference between them, I reckon more people had a better time at Basterds than Transformers.

Niche has nothing to do with it. A good film is a good film regardless of how big its marketing budget is or how many people go to see it. Unfortunately, populist means "popular before we saw it" rather than "after everyone's seen it".

We're not talking about a situation like The Shining or Blade Runner where it took years for cinema goers to re-evaluate how great they were after a critical panning on release. We're talking about giving Attack of the Clones five stars. Ask anybody, not even a film nerd, if that was gratuitous and they'll answer yes.

Hrududu

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Best Film presented by Sony
Best Actress
Anne-Marie Duff (Nowhere Boy)
Carey Mulligan (An Education)
Zoe Saldana (Avatar)
Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria)
Melanie Laurent (Inglourious Basterds)

WTF is this? How can they give an acting award to someone who wasn't even in the film? Oh they put motion sensors on the actresses face or some other crap like that. The feckin' character is CGI. Grr.

I stopped reading Empire years ago. It became very clear that any film that gave them set access got a great review.

foxyboxer

I flicked through the Back to the Future issue a few weeks back.
They have a feature asking questions to actors about their back catalogue.

Empire: What was the inscription on the ring given to Oskar Schinder?
Ben Kingsley: "He who saves the world, saves the world entire"

I put it back on the shelf muttering away to myself

kraggy

Have never, and will never, buy Empire magazine.

Populist trash.