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

[TheoGB]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't Basinger win for supporting actress or something
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

I think this is a pretty unfair statement, Seth. Kim Bassinger did not play any worse than the three male leads but her character was almost non-existant, as nearly all female characters are in these sorts of novels/films.
I'm not commenting on her suitability to win the Oscar, but you should at least acknowlegde this is a classic case of Hollywood underserving women.
Theo
------------------
My band is @ http://www.mokita.net
My Novelty Coasters

 

[Patrick McCart]

1929: Sunrise AND The Crowd should have won. Sunrise won the "artistic" award, but The Crowd should have won the other "best picture" category.
1931: Cimarron...isn't very good. It's a shame Frankenstein, The Public Enemy, and Dracula weren't even NOMINATED!
1942: How Green Was My Valley...won over Kane? You know the win was probably "asked" by Hearst.
Also, it's a sad thing that Alfred Hitchcock never won a Best Director Oscar and that Close Encounters didn't win over Annie Hall.
Also, it's sad that the only animated film nominated for best picture is one of the duller ones...Beauty and the Best.
[Edited last by PatrickMcCart on October 07, 2001 at 03:26 PM]

 

[Marc Colella]

Quote:

The style is Altamnesque, but can you honestly say that the story has been ripped off? Or the characters?

 

[AdrianJ]

Marc,
I'd actually have to watch it again. I haven't seen Magnolia since it's original release, but watching the only truly original thing that struck me was
Spoiler:it rained frogs
Also, for a movie like this, I think it is more style over characterization, therefore, for me, the lack of originality is that Altman has done so many of these films.
I'm not saying Magnolia isn't a good film. I liked it enough to pick up the DVD. I just haven't had time to rewatch it.
------------------

Adrian Jones

 

[Roland G]

In my opinon Fight Club is one of the most overlooked films of all time.
The acting was Great..the movie was very well shot and edited and Fincher's direction was stunning.
But like somebody else already said...i think i am quite happy i didn`t get many awards nor nomminations..although i found it very insulting to only nomminate it for best sound design.
Roland

 

[Mark Palermo]

1992- Malcolm X (Runner up: Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me)
1993- Schindler's List (Runner up: Short Cuts)
1994- Pulp Fiction (Runners up: Natural Born Killers, Ed Wood, Exotica)
1995- Toy Story (Runner up: Nixon)
1996- Fargo (the Coen's best film, though kinda a lame movie year)
1997- Boogie Nights
1998- Pleasantville (Runners up: Dark City, Babe: Pig in the City)
1999- Princess Mononoke (Runners up: The Straight Story, Bringing Out the Dead)
2000- Dancer in the Dark (Runners up: Unbreakable, The Virgin Suicides)
2001 so far- AI (Runners up: Mulholland Drive, In the Mood for Love)

 

[Brajesh Upadhyay]

Terry, I'd agree with everything on your list except "Empire of the Sun" -- IMO a so-so film from Spielberg.

 

[Mike Broadman]

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.

Romeo and Juliet in no way glorified the romance between them. The point of the play was that they were foolish young kids. The tragedy was that they were not allowed to be foolish young kids. Romeo's heart is fickle. He was desperately in love with another woman (forget her name, something with an 'R') until Juliet came along. Shakespeare is telling us that youth needs to be tempered but encouraged, and not to let politics get in the way.
Many people do not understand Shakespeare because they only know of Romeo and Juliet. He as a lot more cynical and realistic than many think.
This is why I thought Shakespeare In Love failed as a "what if." A good "what-if" shows us what could have happened, and I just don't see anyway this could have happened at all. The actions of the Shakespeare character are so contradictory to the person who wrote the Tempest, Richard III, and Macbeth that the movie was absurd.
And, like I said before, I almost always find romantic comedies to be dreadfully boring.

 

[Chuck L]

Okay, I am only 30...but let me go back 40 years ago to a film that was left out of taking home awards and lack of nominations...PYSCHO. Best Picture, Actor, Actress and Director should have all gone to this film.
I think that the academy is full of 'should-have's' which is why certain people go on and get certain things.
Cher-While she won for MOONSTRUCK and deserved to, she should have also been the winner several years before for MASK. I personally believe that she is one of the better actors that we have had in the past twenty years of film and she gets little if no credit.
Whoopie Goldberg-Granted, she saved GHOST from being a very boring film. She should have gotten one for the COLOR PURPLE as well as that picture having been noticed by the academy. Damn them.
LA CONFIDENTIAL-One hell of a film and a wonderful cast. The movie was top notch in every way and was screwed in the wake of the TITANIC. TITANIC was a great film, from a technical aspect. In my taste, the first half of the film is very boring, and I personally could not wait for the damn iceberg to show itself.
REQIUEM FOR A DREAM-Another film that got the screwing. To think that Ellen lost to Julia Roberts makes me sick. For me, Julia gave a fine performance but nothing short of a regular Lifetime Movie of the Week.
AMERICAN HISTORY X-A powerful film that was brillant in it's production, script and acting. Again, it took it in the rear.
MAGNOLIA-Yet again. Another fine film that didn't make a boat load of case and therefore was not accepted by the academy.
I always thought that the reasoning behind the Academy was for the purpose of awarding film excellance. Not for awarding a film for how it does at the boxoffice. If this is the said case, that they honor by money, then I should simply stop going to the theater. Ninty-Five percent of the top money grossing movies, I fail to love, much like like.

 

[AdrianJ]

I always thought that the reasoning behind the Academy was for the purpose of awarding film excellance. Not for awarding a film for how it does at the boxoffice.

If this were true, wouldn't Star Wars and Jurassic Park have won Oscars for Best Film?
------------------

Adrian Jones

 

[Chuck L]

Your lost post goes to explain how subjective it is. Many films no do not make big box office and they do when. Those are not though the typical films that will win the major awards. Many fans are behind MEMENTO winning this year, but it's chances are few since it is still concerned, by Hollywood standards, a small film. Jurassic Park and Star Wars, no, they didn't get Best Picture and their stars weren't pointed out, what they have gotten though is respect and have been singled out for adding many elements to movie making. Not everyfilm is an Academy winner on boxoffice alone...thank God, because that would mean Armageddon would have been a shoe in....the point is that in most cases a lot of great talent is overlooked and left rewardless over big budget stars and big dollar budgets. In most cases, I have found, the smaller films that are left out are way better. in most it is because of the lack of money for a full Academy blitz.

 

[AdrianJ]

I'd say Memento is on par for the same size film as Pollock which did garner the best actress award. I'd say that Guy Pearce has a moderate chance of scoring a best actor nomination. The main problem with Memento is that it was released early in the year (and Gladiator aside!) most films released that early get forgotten by the time that nominations go out.
------------------

Adrian Jones

 

[Chuck Mayer]

A great thread, I must agree. I'll chime in with my lonely belief that 1997 was a good year for movies, and the right film won. I know very few agree, but that's what we are here for. I just wanted to reply to some statements that The Thin Red Line was a great war movie. I don't think so. Terence Malick is a brilliant director. His movies are poems, whereas most movies are stories. That is why his film was not well-received in the mainstream. Terence knows a lot about man and nature and scene composition (huge KUDOS to John Toll - who makes many directors look good), but he knows very little about war. His movie is breathtaking to behold, and I own it and enjoy it. But it is not a war movie. And I understand that war movies aren't about war, but what it engenders in men and society and so on. TTRL does not fit that bill. But it's a good movie.
All that being said, the Oscars rarely pick a film that is outside of it's own "formula." And, as seen by this list, it is wholly subjective. It's just someone else's choice. Don't worry about bending other people to seeing it your way. Just be happy that they even listen

Take care,
Chuck

 

[JonZ]

My Picks:
71-A Clockwork Orange
72-The Godfather
76-Taxi Driver
79-Apocalypse Now
80-Raging Bull
85-Ran
89-Born on the 4th of July
90-Goodfellas
91-JFK
92-Malcolm X
95-Nixon
97-Boogie Nights
98-A Simple Plan
99-The Insider
00-Requiem For A Dream
01-Memento
And my biggest peeve-2001 A Space Odyssey not winning film of the year.Blasphemous!!!!!
------------------
Visit My Pathetic WebPage
"....With that in mind,I humbly add my own prophecy of
what the dawn of the new millennium shall bring forth-
one thousand more years of the same old crap" Jose Chung

 

[Don Carey]

1999
Another STRONG vote for ELIZABETH.
Shakespeare in Love was a very finely crafted film and, in my opinion, was second best. Shakespeare in Love was a better FILM than Saving Private Ryan. Saving Private Ryan had that gripping and emotional 20 minute First Act but after that it was a cookie cutter war story, a good film but not deserving of a Best Picture Oscar.
Again, in my opinion, ELIZABETH was the Best Film and Cate Blanchett was far more deserving of the Best Actress Oscar than Ms. Paltrow. It pays to pick your parents.
[Edited last by Don Carey on October 09, 2001 at 05:35 PM]

 

[DonMac]

My Personal Picks for the Past 35 Years:
1966: Chimes at Midnight (Falstaff)
1967: The Graduate
1968: 2001: A Space Odyssey
1969: Once Upon a Time in the West
1970: M*A*S*H
1971: A Clockwork Orange
1972: Aguirre: Wrath of God
1973: American Graffiti
1974: Chinatown
1975: The Man Who Would Be King
1976: Network
1977: Annie Hall (*)
1978: Eraserhead
1979: Apocalypse Now
1980: Stardust Memories
1981: Das Boot
1982: Blade Runner
1983: The Right Stuff
1984: Amadeus (*)
1985: Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters
1986: Blue Velvet
1987: Hope and Glory
1988: Dangerous Liaisons
1989: Drugstore Cowboy
1990: Goodfellas
1991: Europa, Europa
1992: Glengarry Glen Ross
1993: Schindler's List (*)
1994: Pulp Fiction
1995: 12 Monkeys
1996: Fargo
1997: L.A. Confidential
1998: The Big Lebowski
1999: The Talented Mr. Ripley
2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
2001 (so far): Memento
---
(*) Years that I agreed with the Academy
-
------------------
"It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions." - T. H. Huxley

 

[steve jaros]

I agree with you about Goodfellas in '90 and Pulp Fiction in '94, but i'd say that both Toy Story movies should have won in '95 and '99, respectively...
------------------
History can be cruel in its brevity of words

 

[Elbert Lee]

Of recent memory:
What was the academy thinking of when they chose "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan"?
Sure, it was more uplifting, but definitely not a better film based on the merits of good film making. SPR was definitely more difficult, better acted out, and better done as whole in all categories, except, perhaps, costume design.
Just because Speilberg won for another WWII-based film, doesn't mean he can't make another one within the same decade that isn't equally deserving.
"Gladiator" should never have won. It sure was popular and it was great cinema, but I felt that the academy should analyze a film a little more. I felt "Titanic" was deserving as both a popular film and one that succeeded in what it was attempting to - draw the audience into the period and peeling away the immenseness of the emotion involved with the tragedy. I didn't see how Traffic was all that groundbreaking, but I do appreciate how balanced it was in bringing out the drug trade. I would have thrown up if Mirimax's marketing muscle helped Chocolat win Best Picture (Don't get me wrong, I liked the film, but thought it was nowhere near to being an Oscar contender).
I disagree about Pulp Fiction vs. Gump. I believe that Gump was a more of a philosophically thought-provoking film and even though it was shot on typical hollywood "glossy film" as opposed to the new "grainy" look that Tarantino employed, it was a huge risk in film making as well as a completely unorthadox story. Pulp Fiction is, in my opinion, one of the greatest films of all time, but I feel that the genre it created will be cheapened overtime with so many imitations. Gump will never be repeated.
The English Patient- It has most of the ingredients of a "Best Picture" - great performances, cinematography, "epic story" locales, and a heartbreaking love story. BUT - the only theme of this film was the never ending dispair, longing and heartbreak - 1 dimension film about suffering...... I don't appreciate movies that showcase great performances about suffering. Films that are made just to showcase great acting really pisses me off. NO STORY whatsoever.....People go to the movies to watch a story (The Matrix), not to see a fancy screen test of great actors. I forgot what other films were nominated that year, but English Patient was last on my list.
STAR WARS should have won - groundbreaking film, huge risk, great overall performances, great storytelling, popular, and did what it set out to do: capture and inspire the imagination of millions and upping the level of intelligence of many movie goers....

 

[Walter Kittel]

I assure you that The English Patient was about much more than a '1 dimension film about suffering'. There are a number of subtexts in this film, in particular...
The examination of a variety of loves ( with the audience being cued to this early in the film with the dialog concerning the different types of love - platonic love, filial love, etc. ) is the main thrust of the film...
The passionate, possessive, selfish love between Mrs. Clifton and Almasy, contrasted against the innocent, giving, selfless love between Hanna & Kip; the love that Hanna has for her patient, the friendship between Almasy and Madox, the relationship between Bermann and Kamal, the healing power of love as evidenced in the relationship between Hanna & Kip and to a lesser degree in Carravaggio's change of heart, and so on.
A secondary theme is the comparison of nationalism and multi-nationalism, ( ' a world without borders' with people 'being the real nations' ) that is used to comment upon the inevitable polarization and bonding of people along nationalistic lines that occurs during wartime.
While a romantic tragedy is the canvas against which all of this plays out, it is most certainly not the only theme of the film.
- Walter.

 

[Neil Joseph]

I completely agree with The Colour Purple deserving to win the Oscar in 1985. It was competely snubbed.
------------------
Link Removed

------------------
My Favourite Movie