Vote I say.
Show your work!
Vote I say.
Show your work!
I voted for Titanic and Forrest Gump. They both annoy me for being schmaltzy crap. And I often enjoy that sort of thing.
Titanic and Chicago.
Titanic because it did so much of what annoys me with any kind of historical fiction: The presentism in the various characters in particular pissed me off. There were some characters who were almost Edwardian, but they weren't the major characters. Then the whole mess with perpetuating the libel against First Officer Murdoch annoyed me, as well. It's not simply that it's inaccurate - in the service of a greater story I can and will put up with many inaccuracies (provided the story works), but from the standpoint of storytelling, it just didn't fit. It was an egregious addition that added nothing to the greater whole.
Chicago I'm a bit less firm in my grounding, here, since I've only seen excerpts, and read reviews. I like musicals, I find them an enjoyable form of storytelling. But I agree with one of the common criticisms I've seen about them: There's something wrong when the narrative stops to allow a song to get in. From everything I've seen Chicago is particularly egregious about this. I read a review that complained that every song was bracketed by characters pointing out that someone was going to sing, and why, and what that character would be feeling to cause the song, followed by the song, and then followed, again, by an explanation of what the song was showing. :roll: That's just bad narrative, dammit. Contrast this with something like The Music Man where the songs are often used to advance the plot within the song itself.
Is the Crash on the list the car wreck fetish movie, or the Sandra Bollock crapfest?
Crash, a great movie with a heavy handed focus on racism in LA. I just don't believe it was good enough to warrant winning an Oscar.
Shakespear in Love. I Liked this movie but I can't remember any of it now.
A Beautiful Mind. Was a beautiful piece of shit.
I voted for three in a row:
The English Patient: The most boring film on the list. Just cannot watch this work. No real critique, I just can't get through it.
Titanic: Watched once and did not like, did not understand the love for this movie and of course the most painful song.
Shakespeare in Love: I really resent this film. Oh Boy, the Academy finally gave the Oscar to a comedy. But not a funny comedy. Also Gwyneth is the Devil. Really she is. It is the most undeserving piece of crap ever. There have been some great comedies over the years that could have won and this is what won?
Driving Miss Daisy was not a great movie. It was actually painful watching it and I think I still have scars from where I tried to claw my eyes out.
Forrest Gump was also not a great movie. It wasn't quite as bad as some people make it out to be and so long as you watch it as comedy it's decent, but it sure as hell wasn't best picture material.
Shakespeare in Love was shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
Crash was a decent movie, but like hates said it wasn't best picture material.
Others on the list that I also suspect were shitty, I haven't actually watched.
I chose Gladiator narrowly over Shakespeare in Love and Forrest Gump. Gladiator, in hindsight, is a completely average high budget historical action movie - and "historical" only in the sense that everyone's wearing togas.
My choice is Titanic. It wasn't junk - just not what I'd call best of the best.
I love Gladiator!Quote:
Originally posted by OneCentStamp
Hah! You fools only THOUGHT you knew what I'd vote for!
I must point out that Titanic has Kate Winslet topless. This redeems much. Forrest Gump, on the other hand, is the worst movie ever made.Quote:
Originally posted by Taumpy
Clearly you are forgetting that Gladiator exists. It's easy to try to block out, I know, it really is that terrible. I forgive you.Quote:
Originally posted by Skald the Rhymer
The two I really hated were A Beautiful Mind and Forrest Gump. I didn't want to dilute it by voting down Gladiator but I didn't like that either. A lot of them I haven't bothered seeing -- everyone hated Crash, so I'm just not gonna bother.
I went with Titanic. Awesome special effects, shitty story with cardboard cutouts where characters should have been. I'd rate it no better than a 3 out of 5, and that's including seeing Kate Winslet's boobies as being worth a full star's credit.
I almost voted for Silence of the Lambs. It was a decent murder-mystery and Anthony Hopkins was pretty creepy, but I frankly didn't find it to be significantly better than Manhunter, the Hannibal Lector movie which preceded it, and I don't recall any Oscar buzz over that one. I certainly never saw how Silence was a Best Picture contender.
Well there were the two great acting performances by two great actors in Hopkins and Foster but if that was not enough, then I can see you point.Quote:
Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo
I saw Manhunter, I do think it was inferior in every way.
I've got to disagree with you on this one, friend. I liked Manhunter, and I'm a big fan of Michael Mann in general, but The Silence of the Lambs destroys it on so many levels, first of all the source material; TSotL is just a better book IMO than Red Dragon. Then there's the casting/acting: Bryan Cox is a versatile and underrated actor, but Anthony Hopkins is an all-time great actor, giving the performance of his career.Quote:
Originally posted by dread pirate jimbo
I loved Red Dragon (the book, not the putrescent Brett Ratner movie) and thought it was superior to The Silence of the Lambs with a much more frightening villain. And I like Manhunter a lot despite it's crazy ass dated ending.
That is all.
My vote goes for Titanic. One of my least favorite movies of all time, and how many chick flicks win Best Film Oscar?
And I have to agree with TSOTL over Manhunter. I love Manhunter, but Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal was just genius, and one of his greatest roles.
The English Patient. I now know what it is like to be in a coma.
I instinctively voted for Forrest Gump, even though in hindsight it probably isn't the worst film on the list. Gladiator, for example, is a much stupider and poorly crafted movie in just about every respect. I believe Gladiator was the movie that kicked off the "Shaky-Cam" school of fight choreography. I remember thinking: "Ridley? Could we, the audience, perhaps be allowed to see the combat occurring on screen? If that isn't too much to ask of your movie."
Ultimately, however, Gladiator uses digital technology to create the illusion of Russell Crowe fighting tigers, while Forrest Gump uses digital technology to create the illusion of Tom Hanks standing next to people, so Gladiator wins.
It does astonish me that Gladiator ever won Best Picture, though. It's a big goofy film that generates its entertainment value solely by being big and goofy. Which is perfectly fine, but "big and goofy" aren't typically the defining criteria one associates with Best Picture winners. Otherwise Roland Emmerlich and Michael Bay would have more Oscars between them.
A well made point.Quote:
Originally posted by terrifel
And Uwe Boll would be this cool, edgy, foreign/indie guy to know about, kind of like John Woo in the 80s. :DQuote:
Originally posted by terrifel
I like Gladiator for some bizarre reasons. It is in no way a historically accurate portrayal of Imperial Rome, but it glorifies ideals that Romans liked to pretend they had. It showed senators as staunch republicans, and had this great general who really just wanted to go home to his farm and his wife. (As opposed to most real Roman generals, who were murderous, power-mongering, megalomaniacal bastards.)
Never mind that any Roman legion who fought like those dolts in the opening scenes did would have been RIPPED TO SHREDS by any halfway-conscious group of Germanic tribesman.
I really wanted to make sure Crash got voted for, but I'd probably take it back. It's not much worse than the 'second-tier' bad movies on the list, and at least it's earnest and well put together. Really nothing there beats The English Patient. Unwatchably bad.
I was pretty surprised by The Silence of the Lambs winning Best Picture, since in my opinion it had a great start and devolved into stupidity. It was if halfway through all the other people in the movie had to be suddenly lobotomized in order for Hannibal to seem smart. (That of course was taken even further in the later film). I haven't seen Titanic or Chicago but suspect they aren't all that great.
Looking at the list, it's kind of weird that Dances With Wolves might actually be near the top of a "Best of" list, and it's not all that great a movie. It is at least entertaining, though. (Schindler's List takes the top spot, but DWW would beat out a lot of the rest).
And I'm certainly not arguing that it's wrong to enjoy Gladiator more than Forrest Gump.* Exactly none of my top 20 favorite movies have won Best Picture Oscars, and some of them I freely admit are actively horrible.** But in theory, the Academy is supposed to honor films based on a spectrum of intangible qualities. In theory...Quote:
Originally posted by Orual
Honestly I suspect that this is how a lot of these movies wound up at the top-- not by their own merit, but simply by process of elimination. When I look at the above list, my first reaction is not, "Wow, these are all some great movies," but instead: "Wow, most of these are really not very good movies!" I figure the list of Best Picture nominees probably inspires much the same reaction in Academy voters (tho' probably for somewhat different reasons), so the films that actually get the Award are the ones which have managed to actively repulse the fewest voters for the fewest reasons. It's a little microcosm of American politics in a way.Quote:
Originally posted by parzival
*Technically it's wrong to enjoy either of them, as they are both dumber than rocks, but that's a whole other thread.
**Maybe there needs to be another Oscar Category: "Most Entertainingly Bad Picture." It might solve a lot of problems with the above list.
I'm so conflicted. Every time I open this thread, I have a different answer. I don't agree about Titanic (to me, it's an extremely watchable film. Which isn't the same as good or great, but keeps it out of contention for worst). On the other hand, I look at that list and overall it just makes me think "Wow, when did the Oscars start sucking like this?" I mean, Dances With Wolves was a hugely popular movie when it came out, but there's no way in hell it's a better film than Goodfellas. None. Scorsese is 50000 times the director Costner is. So does that mean it's the worst one on there? Forrest Gump is not a better film than Pulp Fiction. So I kinda think DWW and Forrest Gump are tied for least deserving. On the other hand, I thought A Beautiful Mind was absolutely soulless and empty, like all Ron Howard films. He's technically a proficient director, but he has absolutely no heart. I can't stand watching his movies. They're emotional voids. Gladiator was exciting when it first came out. It was so exciting, in fact, that I think it took a little bit of time for everybody to realize that just because it was hugely entertaining didn't make it the "best" of anything, much less all films released that year. And I really, really hated Chicago. The fact that it beat a film as ambitious, as intense, as evocative, as well put together, and as stunning as The Gangs of New York almost makes my head explode. The fact that Scorsese was twice beaten by shit that nobody is going to care about or remember in another decade adds insult to injury.
American Beauty seems so cliche and overwrought in hindsight, but like Titanic, I give it a pass. I think it did capture something about the time. I really liked Shakespeare in Love. I have no problem seeing how it won. It's a fairly clever romance that Shakespeare fans in particular and theater fans and actors in general can really identify with and laugh at. The script and performances are full of inside jokes, from the subtle to the broad. For example, Ben Affleck was a huge star at the time, playing a small role in a big film, and the actor he was playing was a huge star in Shakespeare's time who ended up playing a secondary role in Romeo and Juliet. Maybe that doesn't get everybody's motor revving, but I still thought it was clever.
I don't have any thoughts on The English Patient because I literally couldn't get past the first 20 minutes. Maybe there's a great film buried in there somewhere. I've also never seen Driving Miss Daisy, Unforgiven, Braveheart, Crash, or Million Dollar Baby.
This article made me think of this thread. Remembering that Pulp Fiction and the Shawshank Redemption came out the same year that Forrest Gump won Best Picture makes me go from thinking the movie was "okay, but not great" to actively hating it.
But that hatred seems unreasonable - why hate the movie, when it's the flawed process that is the Oscar mess that's the blame?Quote:
Originally posted by Zuul
For years, now, I've used the Oscar nomination list to choose films that might like to view at home sometime. I really don't see the winners as being all that good a barometer of what one should watch. I think that every year we can list a picture that doesn't even get the Oscar nomination that is arguably better than those on the list.
Consider the year 1985 (Incidentally, the last year I actually gave a damn about the Oscar wins.). The Best Picture nominations were:
The Color Purple
Kiss of the Spider Woman
Out of Africa
Prizzi's Honor
Witness
IMNSHO four of those five films were pushing boundaries all over the place.
The fifth, the one with the least daring story, and IMNSHO the worst acting, was what won the Best Picture. I'm not even going to argue that Out of Africa is a bad film - it's not. (I may have thought at the time time it was a bit of a snoozefest, but I was 17 - I don't trust my 17 year old self's judgment on what may or may not be a snoozefest.) It's a good film, and a decent adaptation of a great memoir.
And why did it win? IMNSHO it was a suitably sanitized attempt to look at the effects of Colonialism, without actually being all that radical. It could be presented as an edgy pick, without actually forcing anyone in the audience to step away from their preconceptions. It had the right arty feel to it, from the landscapes, to the scenes of the African wilderness, to the freedom to show off many colorful costumes.
But compared to any of the other nominations of that year, it was pablum. The Color Purple took comfortable assumptions about American life and shook them like a terrier. As did Witness, with its indictment of corruption. The Kiss of the Spider Woman begins as an examination of how people survive in prison, and becomes a love story and a story of insanity, and how all three can combine. With an added indictment against the effects of Colonialism, just for a bit of sauce. Prizzi's Honor may be the least daring of the four films other films from this list, but it still pushes gender boundaries, as well as probing where people on the edges of society may place their morals.
The Oscar process is hugely flawed, but don't blame a movie or actor or actress for being the recipient of what you consider to be a flawed award - just recognize that the Academy Awards, for all the hype, are just as susceptible as any other popularity contest for being gamed, suffering pique, or even being blinded by technology. (Which is why I expect Avatar to win this year, for all that I've heard that the story is pretty damned weak.)
For that matter, I'm still rather bitter for the whole creation of the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. After the scare in 1991 when an animated film made it to the Best Picture list, and the critical acclaim that Studio Ghibli was starting to get with mainstream press with Princess Mononoke, it seemed to me and a number of other observers to be a way to keep animation in a safe little ghetto. I won't claim that every year has an animated film that merits consideration as Best Picture - but in those years when it does happen, it should be recognized.
I have to admit, that one reason I'm irked at the Oscar nod for Chicago is that I still believe Spirited Away was a better film. It doesn't change my criticisms of the film, but it does explain to me why I feel so strongly about it. For that matter, in 2008, I think it's not unreasonable to argue that Wall*E was as good a film as most of the nominations for Best Picture. So, I have to admit that I may be being just as unreasonable as you, Zuul, with my own reactions there.
Oops.
You know, I know I knew that on some level, but I never really put together that Forrest Gump beat those two movies out. Holy shit.Quote:
Originally posted by Zuul
Yeah, I love Gump, I gave it a 10 in my thread but both Shawshank and Pulp Fiction were better 10s. I do think that was one of the greatest years for movies though ever.
Other movies that came out that year - Léon, Heavenly Creatures, Ed Wood. All are better than Gump.Quote:
Originally posted by Exy
Braveheart, beyond doubt. It has everything I hate: Mel Gibson being tortured, Mel Gibson being cute, Mel Gibson riding horses, Mel Gibson waving his naked bum around, Mel Gibson in general.
And yet, once upon a time, he was okay.
Heh, yeah. I would probably have voted for it but I've fortunately never seen it.Quote:
Originally posted by vison
It's my choice. And not just for the Mel -- its ridiculous contempt for the history it purports to be honouring, its homophobia...Quote:
Originally posted by Exy
I could take it as a dumb action movie, but Best Picture? Wow.
Quote:
Originally posted by What Exit?
I will readily concede that there are two very strong acting performances in Silence as compared to two solid performances in Manhunter, which makes Silence slightly better. But the source material is irrelevant if the filmed execution doesn't reflect it -- when I saw TSOTL and realized that the big finale was almost identical to that of Manhunter (not to mention the fact that the general plotline is very, very similar), any suspense, twists, or turns that might have been there for another viewer were completely killed for me. So, at the end, I chalked it up in my little movie notebook as a solid 3.5 out of 5 and that was it. I might concede a Best Actor or Actress award for TSOTL, but no way was it a Best Picture. Not in my opinion, at any rate.Quote:
Originally posted by OneCentStamp
Manhunter was a very good movie. It's been years since I saw it and it has stayed with me in a way few other movies have. Not perfect, no, but William Peterson was very, very good. Disturbing movie, without being too graphic.
I have not, thankfully, seen The Silence of the Lambs. I will NEVER see it. I saw about 5 minutes of The Red Dragon and I wish to god I hadn't. I don't see anything "entertaining" in these stories.
I have not forgotten Gladiator. I simply refuse to watch it because of my Russell Crowe boycott.Quote:
Originally posted by NAF1138
People who don't like gladiator and forrest gump forgot how to just have fun watching a movie :(
and dances with wolves was good too. it had a wolf and a dude and president roslyn from battlestar galatica!
but pulp fiction was funner
I missed this poll, but I would have voted for No Country For Old Men. By all the ghods, that was a horrible movie.
I loved Forrest Gump and Dances with Wolves the first time I saw them. But in both cases when trying to watch them again years later I was disappointed. I couldn't even watch them through to the end.Quote:
Originally posted by hatesfreedom
I saw No Country for Old Men for the first time a few weeks ago. It's one of my favorites now but I wouldn't be surprised if I find it too dull to watch in a few years time.Quote:
Originally posted by Clothahump