Most undeserving 'Best Picture' winners? (bad film, theater, Hollywood, cast)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jeez, I was too lazy to take a look at past Oscar winners in my previous posts, so let me quote lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus
Don't get me wrong, Forest Gump was an enjoyable film, but Pulp Fiction should've won that year easy.
Easily...
Dances With Wolves wasn't bad, but Goodfellas was a classic.
Oh gosh, Goodfellas lost to Dances With Wolves??? Epic FAIL. Goodfellas is a classic!
Driving Miss Daisy should've never won in 1989--Born on the Fourth of July, or Do the Right Thing(which didn't even get nominated) were all better films along with a bunch of others released that year(Crimes and Misdemenors or even Field of Dreams were even superior).
I love both Do The Right Thing and Crimes And Misdemeanors. Driving Miss Daisy was just okay IMO.
Does anyone remember the film Ordinary People? Well it somehow beat out Raging Bull back in 1980. Ditto for How Green Was My Valley back in the 1940s which beat out Citizen Kane and the Maltese Falcon.
I partially disagree here, because I love Ordinary People despite having first seen it many years after it was released.I think that it's a wonderful film, but I know many people find it irrelevant. This said, Raging Bull, well... A masterpiece.
How Green Was My Valley on the other hand is a nice moviebut that's about it.
I remember thinking Crash was a good movie when it came out, but I've had no desire to ever see it again since. It was too obvious as a sort of a "message" movie. Good Night and Good Luck was a much better film that year. As was Munich and Capote.
I thought all of the other nominees (Brokeback Mountain, Good Night And Good Luck, Munich and Capote) were clearly superior movies. As I've said before, Crash felt totally average and forgettable to me.The other movies had something particularly compelling, risky, touching and commendable about them.
The English Patient was a boring film--Fargo should've won that year. Which is sort of why No Country For Old Men won in 2007. Once Oscar overlooks a classic film or performance by well known directors or actors they'll make up for it years later--just like how the Deprted wasn't on the level of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, or Goodfellas, but that's the film Scorcese won for.
I liked The English Patient. I quite liked Fargo too. But Secrets & Lies would have been my clear winner that year.
No Country For Old Men is a good movie, IMO. It's not the best Coen Brothers movie out there (it's hard to decide because I love most of their work, but I guess my fave one is Barton Fink), but I thought it had some amazing moments.I'm okay with it having wonthat year and yes, the Academy was obviously making up to them as it did with Scorsese, Al Pacino, etc.
There Will Be Blood was my other favourite.
Looking back at a list of Best Picture winners for the last 40 years, there's a few times the Academy got it right. Unforgiven deserved to win in 1992 as did Schindler's List in 1993, Platoon in 1986, The Last Emperor in 1987 or the Godfather films or One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest back in the 1970s---personally I find those to be great films, worthy of classic status. But I'm still undecided on how films like the Hurt Locker will be remembered in 10 years--and films like Gladiator and Braveheart were basically well-made historical action flicks, and I can't even really remember seeing films like A Beautiful Mind or Chicago.
Agreed. Most of my favourite American movies never got to win Best Picture, and many of them weren't even shortlisted.
Slumdog Millionaire?? Best picture? I don't agree. There Will Be Blood got ripped off.
The movie that got ripped off the worst in Oscars history: Star Wars[Episode IV]
May the force be with you... always.
Titanic clearly won because the voters were mesmerized by the box office numbers; the best picture of 1997, and one of the best movies ever, was "LA Confidential"
Up until the 90s, the winning films were at least legitimate contenders. But Gladiator, Titanic, Braveheart, Slumdog Millionaire and Forrest Gump were complete crap and the US Film Industry ought to be ashamed that they were even released.
And Annie Hall over Star Wars is probably the most outrageous selection ever. Star Wars is the iconic movie of the era.
And I'm not a total stickler when it comes to historical accuracy. I know that a movie's job is to show a good story, not adhere to all the facts of history. But GLADIATOR was just ridiculous. Watching it, I got the suspicion that had Ridley Scott been directing GEORGE WASHINGTON instead, the movie would have centered around Washington forsaking the Army of the Potomac to become a world-famous bullfighter and eventually seize the throne of England.
One pick that really gave the DrummerBoy the red-ass was in 2004 when "Million Dollar Baby" won the Best Picture Oscar over "The Aviator." Don't get me wrong, I've always been a big fan of both Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman, but I just felt the "Baby" was a very, very mediocre film, and that Cint and Morgan pretty much just went throught the motions as far as acting. The Aviator, on the other hand, was one of the best movies over the past 10 years, and Leo DiCaprio's portrayal of Howard Hughes was one of the five best EVER actor portrayals of real-life persons in Film History. Yet, Jamie Foxx's ho-hum impersonation of Ray Charles won the Best Actor Oscar that year, mkaing for yet another injustice IMHO.
And I'm not a total stickler when it comes to historical accuracy. I know that a movie's job is to show a good story, not adhere to all the facts of history. But GLADIATOR was just ridiculous. Watching it, I got the suspicion that had Ridley Scott been directing GEORGE WASHINGTON instead, the movie would have centered around Washington forsaking the Army of the Potomac to become a world-famous bullfighter and eventually seize the throne of England.
Heh... And I don't even mind historical fiction that's takes a little liberty with the facts, but changing the history of Roman emperors(Marcus Aurelius died of plague, not being strangled by Commodus) for the story seemed pretty weak. It's basically filmmakers saying, well most of the people who see this won't know much about Roman history to begin with. In the end though it was just an action film--never should have won the Oscar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
