• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

films: Worst Movie To Win The Oscar For Best Picture

supertrav77 said:
I agree. And there are people who's intelligence I normally respect who like this movie. I mean, Christ, racism is not THAT obvious. People going off on these long monologues "my dad lost his job to one of your people".
I'll say that the movie's heart was in the right place. But it was just soooooo sloppily executed. Like it was written by a 21 year old liberal arts major.
Click to expand...

Most accurate and concise review of that movie I have ever read.
 
PinholeStar said:
The main thing I take from this though is a reaffirming of just how incredible Hollywood's output was in the 50's & 70's. The nominations are just lists of classic after classic.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah. Even though hardly any European or Japanese films were nominated (boo!) those lists are generally pretty good. I don't know whether films are getting worse, or Hollywood is getting worse at recognising the good ones. Probably the latter.
 
Alls I know is Dawn of the Dead isn't on that last (not the remake), neither is Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and Neither is The People Under the Stairs. Those were the most entertaining films I've seen from their respective years, so that is why I don't care who wins these contests.

Forrest Gump is awesome, and definitely deserved it in 1994, I mean Pulp Fiction was ok, but it got on my nerves because it tried to be so cool, just like Tarantino tries to do in all of his movies, although Death Proof was sweet for the second half of it.
 
Crash was the safe choice when it was nominated for best picture, which is about par for the course as far as the Academy Awards are concerned. But Terry Gilliam had a good quote about why the film was effective: "Films don't seem to surprise me any more, they don't leave pieces of shrapnel in me like they used to. The last one to do that was probably Crash, which kept playing with my prejudices." Better than other movies from that year? Probably not.

Dead Poets Society had enough angst and rawness when it came out, even if it might not hold up anymore. Vertigo not being nominated, on the other hand, is just plain injustice, especially considering how far ahead of its time it was. In my mind, Citizen Kane is the only flick comparable when it comes to influencing future generations of cinematography.
 
The LOTR trilogy was completely awe-inspiring. I mean, really, I was floored when I finally watched all three in order. Floored! What an incredible epic of legendary proportions. It totally deserved the Oscar. I just hate how they had to basically do a token award, since the other two films didn't win (but easily could have), so by default they gave the award to the third film, which wasn't even the best of the three.
 
i HATED training day. that movie was one of the first i wanted my money back for. i can like complete pieces of crap... i liked crash and you all hate it. but thats ok... cause i absolutely hated training day.
 
echo off said:
i HATED training day. that movie was one of the first i wanted my money back for. i can like complete pieces of crap... i liked crash and you all hate it. but thats ok... cause i absolutely hated training day.
Click to expand...

Fortunately... Training Day didn't win Best Picture. Rejoice!
 
I'm have conflicted feelings about Rocky winning the Oscar. Don't get me wrong, I think there's something really special at work in that flick, but come on, Taxi Driver and Network both came out that year. Seriously.

As for the winner of the award, I'm tempted to declare a tie between Titanic and Gladiator. Sure, both have scope and vision, but I can't find much of anything in either flick to make them worthy of Oscar status. L.A. Confidential was twenty times the movie Titanic was. As for Gladiator, I'm convinced it was one of those "sorry about that" Oscars awarded to someone unjustly overlooked in the past (in this case, for Alien and Blade Runner).
 
Crash winning over Brokeback Mountain was an absolute travesty, as was Shakespeare in Love winning over Saving Private Ryan. Forrest Gump beating out Pulp Fiction was just fucking stupid. Really out of those two films, which one do you think had a more lasting impact on cinema? Forrest Gump is a decent film, but it's not anywhere in Pulp Fiction's league.

Occasionally, when films like L.A. Confidential and American Beauty win, you still have a tiny bit of faith in the process however.

*edit* never mind, L.A. Confidential won for Kim Basinger, not for the actual film.
 
Last edited:
GreatSpaceCoaster said:
Occasionally, when films like L.A. Confidential and American Beauty win, you still have a tiny bit of faith in the process however.
Click to expand...

L.A. Confidential didn't win. It lost to Titanic.
 
If you think Forrest Gump was a bad picture, I don't even know if I can talk to you about film. Maybe Shawshank should have beaten it out that year, but calling it a bad film is utterly ridiculous.

"Unbelievable?" Did you say that after seeing the Lord of the Rings films? Because there were, you know, hobbits and dragons and shit running around. 8)

I'd vote for American Beauty. I thought it was great when I saw it, but seeing it a few times since then, I felt it was a bit shallow, and tried to hard to be edgy. A good film, but not worth an Oscar.

Crash also didn't deserve one. Pack as many stars as you can into a film that touches on every hot-button issue possible, and presto, you have an Oscar winner.:p

In 1998, Shakespeare in Love won for best picture. I didn't see the film, but like a typical movie snob, I'm going to say it sucked anyhow. ;) Either way, my point is that in 1998 there were 2 films that should have won that award over SIL. American History X is one, but even more deserving was The Truman Show. That movie is seriously underrated.
 
Last edited:
SonOF said:
If you think Forrest Gump was a bad picture, I don't even know if I can talk to you about film. Maybe Shawshank should have beaten it out that year, but calling it a bad film is utterly ridiculous.

"Unbelievable?" Did you say that after seeing the Lord of the Rings films? Because there were, you know, hobbits and dragons and shit running around. 8)

I'd vote for American Beauty. I thought it was great when I saw it, but seeing it a few times since then, I felt it was a bit shallow, and tried to hard to be edgy. A good film, but not worth an Oscar.

Crash also didn't deserve one. Pack as many stars as you can into a film that touches on every hot-button issue possible, and presto, you have an Oscar winner.:p

In 1998, Shakespeare in Love won for best picture. I didn't see the film, but like a typical movie snob, I'm going to say it sucked anyhow. ;) Either way, my point is that in 1998 there were 2 films that should have won that award over SIL. American History X is one, but even more deserving was The Truman Show. That movie is seriously underrated.
Click to expand...
QFT! I agree on every point.
 
Whats wrong with Forest Gump? Really? It was a well done film and I enjoy watching it. Screw you guise.
You whine, whine, whine about how Pulp Fiction didn't win. Yes, it is a great film,b but what you have to look at when you're determining how a film wins an academy award you should check out how popular it was in the box office and how many people saw it.
Pulp Fiction made $107,928,762 and Forest Gump made $329,694,499 over three times that.
What can we conclude from this? Three times as many people saw Forest Gump and therefore rocked moar ass then Pulp Fiction did (In its year of release.)
I'm not saying Pulp Fiction was a bad film, in fact I loved it. However, listening to you people moan over the fact that Forest Gump won best picture is fucking annoying as all shit.
 
euphoricnod said:
Whats wrong with Forest Gump?
Click to expand...

It's stupid. And kind of pointless. And it doesn't have much of... what do you call those thingies.... ...where one event coherently transitions into another.... Oh yeah! plot! Forest Gump doesn't have much of a plot or coherent structure. Did I say retarded yet? Cause, yeah, it's retarded too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top