Oscar should've beens...Best Picture (1 Viewer)

[Edwin Pereyra]

Just a random thought before I actually read the entire thread and comment on the other films mentioned. Rocky is a fine film. What hurts it is the countless number of sequels that followed it. The first one is in a class all on its own that hopefully others would be able to separate it from the unnecessary sequels that followed it.
~Edwin
------------------
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/005780.html#8 http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/006466.html

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Lots of great discussion here! I must second the question of Gladiator being reviled. I agree that without Crowe and Scott, it would have been complete trash, but it HAD Crowe and Scott. Is it due to it's popularity? That's a poor reason, since SW is widely considered the most popular movie of all time. But I have harped on this in my Titanic thread, and I am certain you are sick of it

Simplicity and focus are very powerful storytelling tools.
I need to see Annie Hall.
I love SW as well, but there ISN'T A MOVIE with more one-dimensional characters. But who cares...it's SW!
And Fight Club will be remembered long after the Oscar winners of years past are Trivial Pursuit answers

Take care,
Chuck

 

[JustinS]

Just for the intellectual exercise and restircting my choices to those films actually nominated for Best Picture since 1980...
1981 - Raging Bull was a stronger, more noteworthy film than Ordinary People. With Coal Miner's Daughter and The Elephant Man also in the hunt, this was an unusually strong batch of contenders overall.
1982 - Raiders of the Lost Ark is a near-perfect example of a genre generally ignored by the Academy for their highest honor.
1983 - Gandhi was a very strong film, to be sure, but my pick for this year is the oft-overlooked Missing.
1984 - Terms of Endearment did win and probably deserved to as compared to the other nominees.
1985 - Amadeus was a very deserving winner this year. The finest film made in the decade, IMHO.
1986 - One thing I can be sure of is that Out of Africa was not the best film of that year, despite its win. Of the nominees, I would pick Kiss of the Spiderwoman.
1987 - It should come as a surprise to no one that Platoon took home that statue this year. Despite a couple of glaring flaws, it deserved the honor as compared to the other nominees.
1988 - Some interesting choices as nominees this year with The Last Emperor taking the statue. Certainly a very fine film with few flaws, I enjoyed both Moonstruck and Broadcast News quite a bit more. Albert Brooks was robbed in the supporting actor category.
1989 - I still have trouble defining my opinion on this year.
1990 - Driving Miss Daisy just didn't deserve the awards that it won this year. My Left Foot probably out of that batch.
1991 - Goodfellas I suppose. I fail to see why Ghost or The Godfather Part III deserved nominations and Reversal of Fortune almost certainly did deserve one.
1992 - A remarkably weak batch of nominees. I find it difficult to believe that Silence of the Lambs was the best film of the year. Beauty and the Beast should have taken the statue in a very weak year.
1993 - Another weak batch of noms. Unforgiven should not have even been nominated IMHO. Who should have won I cannot say but Glengarry Glen Ross should have at least gotten a nomination.
1994 - A very strong batch of noms with Schindler's List, to no one's surprise, taking the win. The Remains of the Day is a personal favorite of mine but it would have been hard to vote that film over Schindler's, despite its occasional flaws.
1995 - Either Shawshank or Quiz Show over the totally undeserving Gump. On the other hand, Hanks probably deserved the Best Actor win. How in the hell did Travolta even get a nomination???
1996 - Another weak batch IMHO. Braveheart had too many flaws, most especially a ridiculous ending (torture sequence), to deserve the win. On the other hand, who among those nominees deserved it more? Dead Man Walking should have gotten a nomination, as should have Toy Story and (I'll probably get flamed for saying this) Twelve Monkeys.
1997 - A good group of nominations with The English Patient earning a well-deserved win.
1998 - Despite the spectacle of it all, Titanic was a most undeserving winner. L.A. Confidential or even, perhaps, Good Will Hunting from that batch of nominees.
1999 - Elizabeth over the ultimate winner Shakespeare in Love or Saving Private Ryan. Awarding the Best Actress statue to Paltrow instead of the far more deserving Cate Blanchett or Emily Watson was a criminal act, IMHO.
2000 - I would have been happy seeing either American Beauty or The Insider win this year. Crowe should have won his acting Oscar this year instead of the next.
2001 - A very frustrating year (or perhaps it seems so because it is still so fresh in my memory) as I disagreed with almost every one of the major awards. Traffic should have won in what was a rather weakish batch of nominees. Roberts winning over Linney or Burstyn was just silly.
1997 -

 

[Stephen_M]

Ganhdi remains, IMHO, the least of all of these. It was the reverential epic that Hollywood drools over all the time and because the running time dragged on and on, the film had Self-Importance draped all over it. In fact, one could put a lot of those 80's winners - Ordinary People, Terms of Endearment, Chariots of Fire - on the list of "nice films" - but Best Picture of their respective year? History has already spoken on those.

 

[Mike Broadman]

1999 - Elizabeth over the ultimate winner Shakespeare in Love or Saving Private Ryan. Awarding the Best Actress statue to Paltrow instead of the far more deserving Cate Blanchett or Emily Watson was a criminal act, IMHO.

Here, here! Finally, someone who agrees with me on this one. Maybe I'm just a sucker for historical stories, but I loved this movie. It looked great, it had those religious and political themes I love so much, and Blanchett was great.
Shakespeare in Love was such a lame-ass movie. I'm sorry, but it didn't make any sense. I just despise the whole "romantic-comedy" thing, so I'm a bit biased. I also don't like Gwyneth Paltrow, she just bothers me. Saving Private Ryan was fantastic- for the first 20 minutes. I couldn't get into the rest of the movie. First they show us, in detail, about the horror and violence of the battles, then I'm supposed to care if Matt Damon is saved?
Anyway, to hell with the Oscars. It seems a bit silly that this industry spends so much time and effort to congratulate themselves: Oscar, Emmy, Grammy, Latin Grammy, People's Choice, Image, Golden Globe, Tony, and all the MTV crap. Sure, I like movies as much as the next guy, but with all these awards, you'd think these people are the Second Coming. They're just entertainers. If one "good" thing came out of the tragedy of September 11, it's that it may have given some people perspective, and at least for a little while, people won't think that the universe revolves around Julia Roberts.
Ok, rant over.

 

[TheoGB]

1989? Indy and the Last Crusade or Batman? I have always considered the Last Crusade better than Raiders. At first veiwing they are equally great but when I watched them a few more times I realised how much of Raiders is taken up by incredibly drawn out chases that can get tedious. Crusade has brilliant dialogue and some great actors in it.
Batman is a seminal movie. It ditched finally the awful 60's version and made it cool to have the dark comic strip style emerge again.
Point taken Bard_W - it just seems often like we shouldn't even give the Oscars the decency of admitting they exist.
Theo
------------------
My band is @ http://www.mokita.net

 

[Chad R]

quote: 1994 "Pulp Fiction" ("Forrest Gump" took the award, but few can argue with writer/director Quentin Tarantino's groundbreaking film being the better of the two)[/quote]
Okay, I can. I don't understand the praise heaped on this film that's never pretending to be anything but what it's title says, pulp.
This is a film with completely one note characters (they all sound like Tarrantino) with trite and scene filling pop culture dialogue. The first scene is a prime example with all of its discussion of what McDonald's calls its burgers in France and what a TV Pilot is. This in no way tells us anything about who these people are aside from they're killers with a very nonchalant attitude. But I'd expect someone who kills for a living be nonchalant, thus they strike but one note and are hardly surprising. Thus the biggest crime of this film is that they characters are unintetersting.
Much of the rest is exploitive and trivial. The way in which violence is presented is sick in its detachment. The only thing interesting about 'Pulp Fiction' was it's structure, but the characters were so pitiful they overshadow whatever tricks he did. It's classic style over substance. And, I'd argue, is one of the contributing factors to the void of material Hollywood is offering up. The preponderance of this film as a classic tells hollywood that slick dialogue and skewed structure makes great films.
Pulp Fiction was at the bottom of my list that year. I'll gladly argue which was better, 'Forrest Gump' or Shawhsank Redemption' (I tend to not be bothered by sentimentalism so I pick Forrest), but can't understand the fascination with 'Pulp Fiction.' Although a rip off, 'Reservoir Dogs' is a much better film.
[Edited last by Chad R on October 05, 2001 at 01:21 PM]

 

[Shane Gralaw]

As long as we're having disputes over the most deserving picture for 1994, how about one that Pulp Fiction beat in the best original screenplay category? Peter Jackson's masterwork Heavenly Creatures was a better film than Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, AND Shawshank Redemption IMHO,but alas, not a cultural phenomenon, so it was out of luck.

 

[Rob Lutter]

1967 - 2001: A Space Odyssey
1971 - A Clockwork Orange (is there any other movie that can make you feel sorry for such a terrible person?)
1981 - The Empire Strikes Back
1987 - Full Metal Jacket
1991 - Reservoir Dogs
1994 - Pulp Fiction
1995 - Se7en
1997 - LA Confidential (Titanic still boggles my mind for winning... total academy cop out)
1999 - Fight Club (Actually, it might be better that it didn't win, it fits the movie

)
2001 - Memento (I am already sure that it'll get screwed out of it)
I have pretty much come to the conclusion that the Academy is bullshit anyways... they always play favorites

------------------
Robert Lutter

My DVD Collection
Link Removed Software Reviewer (Coming Soon!)

 

[RayG]

I still can't believe "The Straight Story" wasn't nominated for best film for the 2000 Academy Awards.

 

[Marc Colella]

1990 - Goodfellas was definetely the best picture that year.
1991 - JFK was much more deserving than Silence of the Lambs.
1994 - Pulp Fiction should've walked away with it all over Forrest Gump. Shawshank is a close second.
1996 - Without a doubt Fargo would've been my choice. Such a great film with tremendous performances all around. Probably the crown in the Coen's brothers amazing career. Trainspotting should have been nominated.
1997 - Had The Sweet Hereafter NOT been a Canadian film, it would have been nominated for Best Picture.
IMO, it was the most deserving of Oscar that year.
Boogie Nights should have also been nominated.
1998 - The Thin Red Line deserved the Best Picture Oscar. I consider it the best war film of all time. It didn't bother me that Shakespeare in Love won... as long as Saving Private Ryan didn't get rewarded for the formula that it was.
1999 - Magnolia should have been nominated, and should have won Best Picture. Such a risky film that put it all on the line. No formulas, and terrific performances all around.
2000 - Almost Famous was subbed of a nomination, and ultimately the Best Picture Oscar.

 

[JasonK]

I disagree with the Academy on the following (and I'm only allowing myself to disagree if I've seen the winner of the award, too.)
-Taxi Driver over Rocky - My favorite Scosese film, and Deniro is outstanding. The film just strikes a nerve. Yeah.
-Star Wars over Annie Hall - I love Annie Hall. But I'm a Star Wars nerd at heart. (This argument has no merit, I know...)
-Pulp Fiction over Forrest Gump - Pulp Fiction forced me to pay attention to movies in a different way. To be an active veiwer, I guess. I loved watching the film repeatedly, just LISTENING to the way the characters talk. I like the burger scene. It may be written like a Pulp novel, but damn is it fun...(the needle scene, Bruce Willis looking for the appropriate weapon, the gimp...I may have to watch this tonight...)
-LA Confidential over Titanic
-Goodfella's over Dances with Wolves
-Crouching Tiger or Traffic over Gladiator
and last, I'll back Seth with Do the Right Thing over Miss Daisy in '89. Do the Right Thing is one of the most important movies I've ever seen, and certainly had a powerful message about race relations in the 80's. The Criterion DVD is one of my most treasured discs.
*whew* Good thread, gang.

 

[Reginald Trent]

Good point about "Do The Right Thing". Spike and Denzel's good work continues to get dissed.

 

[AdrianJ]

1999 - Magnolia should have been nominated, and should have won Best Picture. Such a risky film that put it all on the line. No formulas, and terrific performances all around.

No formulas? This one reminds me a lot of Altman films like Nashville and Short Cuts.
------------------

Adrian Jones

 

[Seth Paxton]

if one takes the time

For me, it took no time nor effort to pick Gladiator down to it's middle-of-the-road plainness and trite scripting. In fact, it seemed to wear it as a badge of honor.
I thought Crowe carried the film and was the only piece of the film lingering anywhere near exceptional. The rest was standard low-imagination filmmaking and some flat acting. Phoenix was much more impressive in Quills.
That being said, I did think Gladiator worked as a straight action film, Walking Tall in Rome. I just don't normally associate such work with Oscars. Not that action shouldn't win Oscars, because I really think it should happen more often, just that I didn't see anything from Gladiator that I hadn't seen before.
Also, it's scripting was at times rather sloppy, as if it was unsure which thread was important or which direction it really wanted to drive the story. This could be editing, I don't know. But I left the theater feeling this way, this is not some chip-on-the-shoulder built on months of fuming.
Obviously many people thought a lot of the film in Oscar terms. This surprised me quite a bit as I didn't even briefly consider this film a contender till the Golden Globes.
But then that's the point here, isn't it. I found Shakespeare in Love to be a cleverly woven storyline setting up tons of witty dialog and touching moments. Yet others find it a disgrace that it won. I think that might be a bit too strong even for SPR fans. I have a hard time understanding why SIL was so pathetic to others. Preferring SPR is one thing, but to think SIL had no business even being nominated is another.
And for the record I would have put CTHD, Traffic, Almost Famous, Requiem for a Dream, Erin Brockavich as my 5 nominees. It's not just a CTHD vs Glad thing and never was. I'm surprised to know that anyone thinks Glad. was a better, more powerful film than Requiem for a Dream or more uplifting than Almost Famous.

 

[LawrenceK]

1989 - Do The Right Thing (Amazing)
1990 - Goodfellas (This movie is unbelievably good)
1991 - JFK (Silence of the Lambs has NOTHING on this)
1994 - Pulp Fiction (Forrest Gump is one of the most grating and stupid movies ever made, The Shawshank Redemption is just...so uninspired and formulaic.)
1995 - Seven (Braveheart - crap. Apollo 13 - crap.)
1996 - Fargo (Only film by the Coens I like)
1997 - L.A. Confidential (Robbed. If it had been the highest grossing film of all time, it would have won...)
1998 - The Thin Red Line (Brilliant)
1999 - Three Kings (American Beauty....ugh. Not horrible..just...boring.)
2000 - Almost Famous (Traffic was...well...shit. Gladiator was equally bad. Requiem For a Dream and Almost Famous deserved nominations.

 

[Seth Paxton]

And don't get me wrong on Do the Right Thing. It's not just the message that rates it so high. In fact, I usually dissassociate the message from the craft and regard a film higher from utilizing all aspects of filmmaking for telling whatever story/message it wishes to.
That is why I find DtRT to be so powerful. There are beautiful shots throughout the film, and each of them is used to move and touch the audiance, often without direct contact (meaning that the scene doesn't directly tell the audiance what the emotion is).
From the striking use of a red painted wall to amplify the feeling of unbearable heat, to the softened characters that find themselves unable to declare a "side" in the conflicts, the film is a masterpiece of filmmaking. It just happens to convey an important message as well.
Just watch the film visually sometime, maybe with the sound off even. There is a lot more than ordinary, from-the-book cinematography going on, yet it keeps it's distance from being too flashy as well (see anything by PTAnderson for an example of that).

 

[Seth Paxton]

quote: Didn't Basinger win for supporting actress or something[/quote]
Which is why I said "actors" and not actress. And insult to injury was that Bassinger was adequate but the 3 men DOMINATED (I would say carried but the script and direction were also outstanding). She was the weakest link among the 4 primary characters, yet the only winner.
quote: Shakespeare in Love was such a lame-ass movie. I'm sorry, but it didn't make any sense.[/quote]
Having lost true love to an arranged marriage myself, I would disagree strongly about it not making any sense. That film captured INDENTICALLY the feelings I felt during the brief months I had to spend with my Indian college sweetheart before losing her. Maybe that's why I favor that film as well.
You have to consider how an artist could create a powerful work like Romeo and Juliet and NOT have experienced such love and pain. As a "what if" I thought it excelled. Plus it was a gorgeous period piece.

then I'm supposed to care if Matt Damon is saved?

When the hell did this become a theme within this film? That was only a plot device to drive the primary themes. The ONLY reason he needs to live within the story is so that he can owe that debt. Otherwise they might have very well killed him off in the final battle as well. The themes are how men could justify what they were going through, what the survivors and their children owe to those men who fought and died, and about the brotherhood and relationships that these men developed as they fought side by side.
The movie is no more "about" Ryan than it is about D-Day. It's about Hanks, Sizemore and the squad. And it's about what others owe to Hanks character. Saving Ryan was a vehicle just as the romance in Titanic was a vehicle.
[Edited last by Seth Paxton on October 07, 2001 at 01:36 PM]

 

[Brian Lawrence]

This all just goes to further prove my point that is better for a film NOT to win the Oscar, As those films are in much better company than the Oscar winners.
Starting with 1970 as the person who started this post did, I see only 2 years out of the last 31 that I personally felt that the best film of the year won the Oscar. 1970 for Patton & 1983 for Terms of Endearment.
Think of it this way. The deserving film that did not win Best Picture is in the same company as Raging Bull, Dr. Strangelove, Citizen Kane, 2001, Pinocchio, Seventh Seal, It's a Wonderful Life, 400 Blows, Seven Samurai, Paths of Glory & Vertigo.
While the films that do win can be listed aside such underwhelming movies as Gladiator, Driving Miss Daisy, Greatest Show on Earth, Gigi, Out of Africa, Forest Gump, Braveheart, Kramer Vs. Kramer, & Around the World in 80 Days.

 

[Seth Paxton]

scene filling pop culture dialogue

Pulp Fiction is the REASON this sort of dialog became pop culture. There were NO OTHER films doing this sort of dialog before this, except R. Dogs. That's one of the reasons it was groundbreaking. People weren't talking this way either.
It wasn't just out-of-order timelines, but the reasons for that scene ordering. For example, the restaurant is obviously a thematic bookend, it marks the journey for us so we can measure where the characters begin and end.
Also, for the film to maintain the upbeat ending tone that Jackson's transformation should make us feel, we must not end on Travolta's death, but rather with a light moment between JT and SJ. This sort of story structure is the genius. It's not "doing it out of order" but rather allowing yourself to link scenes by some other method and not feeling bounded by timelines, etc.
We see that sort of thing ripped-off all the time except that they often do put things out of order simply for the purpose of doing so. That's the downfall of the rip-offs, that they totally miss the reasoning for the scene ordering.
Soderbergh is another expert at linking the film along character development (and even audiance development) or thematic development, rather than chronology.