Today's Post:
Top 5 Undeserved Best Picture Oscars
This is a very loose and dubious topic. It could be because the film awarded didn't deserve it because another film was clearly better. It could be because the film was simply crap. I am particularly looking forward to comments on this one.
Here goes:
1. "Million Dollar Baby" (2004) – Now, I know this movie had great performances, and I love Clint Eastwood as much as the next person, but this film was a depressing festival of pain. Mr. Eastwood has been on a mission in the last ten years of making depressing films that offer no alternative to the anguish being relentlessly displayed on the screen. I appreciate tragedy and reality, but come on, making films that are utterly depressing and have not shred of hope is not very hard to do. Furthermore, The Aviator and Finding Neverland were both superior films. On a positive note, kudos to the Academy for allowing an indie gem like Sideways to compete.
2. "Shakespeare in Love" (1998) – Are you kidding me? Against "Saving Private Ryan" and "Life is Beautiful?" This is not just a guy who likes war films (and I am that) taking a genre preference here. I can't be alone in this.
3. "Forrest Gump" (1994) – This was not a bad film, but it was given much more depth than it actually had. "The Shawshank Redemption" and even "Quiz Show" deserved the Oscar more.
4. "Dances with Wolves" (1990) – Can I be the only one who thinks that this film was garbage? According to this film, it is possible for a white woman to have lived with native-Americans in the 1800's who not only teased her hair, but had access the Hairspray. Did it win because it was long? Maybe it was because it was running against films like "The Godfather Part III" and "Ghost." 1990 must have been a terrible year for movies. Then again, "Goodfellas" was in there too. Oh, Mr. Scorcese, you truly have been screwed over the years.
5. "Rain Man" (1988) – I like "Rain Man," but this entry squeezes in only because of the competition that year. "The Accidental Tourist" was better, but I accept that it couldn't have won. "Dangerous Liaisons" and "Mississippi Burning," however, were clearly superior films, even from an Oscar perspective. I can see Best Actor for Dustin Hoffman. But Best Film? I don't think so.
I hope this posting has adequately illustrated my contempt for the Oscars, and how little the quality of the film affects the winner of the award.
I hope this posting has adequately illustrated my contempt for the Oscars, and how little the quality of the film affects the winner of the award.
SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - An excellent movie, but it never would have won in a better year. Look at the competition: JFK, PRINCE OF TIDES, BUGSY, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Even in this pack, I probably would have voted for JFK or PRINCE OF TIDES.
I agree except for JFK, unless you consider that film a fictional movie, which it was. The biggest travesty of that film is that people actually believed that the material being presented was based on facts. It would forgive the film if it had a big disclaimer in flashing lights at the opening credits: "THIS FILM IS BASED ON MY OWN PERSONAL OPIONIONS, NOT ON FACTS." The theories presented are ludicrous and in some cases based on almost completely fabricated premises, but presented in such a way that the audience thinks it's factual and it was given an almost documentary status. It should have been classified in the fantasy genre.
Wow, I ranted there. Sorry. It's an ok film if you don't take it as being based on historic reality.
"Shakespeare in Love" sure as HELL didn't deserve to win. I've never understood the appeal of "Forrest Gump", either.
I disagree on "Dances With Wolves". It was a little long, but I believe it deserved the Oscar that year.
Driving Miss Daisy.....'nuff said :smile:
I've never regarded "Around The World In Eighty Days" (1956) as a worthy 'Best Picture' winner. It is fun to sit through but it's logistical achievements far outweigh it's cinematic merits. I thought "Rain Man" was pretty good as was "Dances With Wolves" but that the older movie "Run Of The Arrow" was rather superior.
Hmm. Fair enough. I've always hated "Dances With Wolves." Maybe it's Kevin Costner. I either love him in certain films or hated him in others. "No Way Out," and pretty much any movie of this that has to do with baseball, are good. He should stick to baseball movies. "Waterworld" is good in the "bad" sense. Oh, and the woman with the obvious hairsprayed teased hair in "Dances With Wolves" really, really annoys me. I guess i'm just nitpicky.
wait a moment, the aviator better than million dollar baby? c'mon, the aviator is sooo boring...I agree with you in the year of saving private year, I add the two biggest crazy choices in the Academy history:
1. "Titanic" (1997). The most overrated movie of all time won the oscar...other candidate was "L.A. Confidential".
2. "Rocky" (1976). Yeah, a good movie, but...in the same year of "Taxi driver". TAXI DRIVER!!
Nothing more to say...
Quote from: jlb67 on December 04, 2008, 11:23:08 AM
Today's Post:
Top 5 Undeserved Best Picture Oscars
This is a very loose and dubious topic. It could be because the film awarded didn't deserve it because another film was clearly better. It could be because the film was simply crap. I am particularly looking forward to comments on this one.
2. "Shakespeare in Love" (1998) – Are you kidding me? Against "Saving Private Ryan" and "Life is Beautiful?" This is not just a guy who likes war films (and I am that) taking a genre preference here. I can't be alone in this.
You're not alone.
Looking over the entire history of the Oscars to determine the 5 most overrated would require more research on my part than I'm willing to put in. To be fair, you probably need to consider dozens or even hundreds of movies that were not even nominated. If I were Academy dictator, I would have picked BLUE VELVET as Best Picture over PLATOON in 1986, for example.
One strange Oscar year was 1941: the winner was HOW GREEN IS MY VALLEY. I haven't seen it but I'm sure it must be astoundingly good; after all, it beat out both CITIZEN KANE and THE MALTESE FALCON!
In 1952 Cecil B. DeMille's laff-fest circus soaper THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH beat out HIGH NOON and THE QUIET MAN for 'Best Picture'. It's generally thought amongst Oscar historians as the worst ever 'best picture' winner. It features an "All-Star Cast" of Hollywood types and circus performers including Betty Hutton, Cornel Wilde, Charlton Heston, Lou Jacobs, James Stewart (as "Buttons the Clown") - and Tuffy Genders as "Himself".
SINGIN' IN THE RAIN wasn't even nominated.
I'll keep mine to the past 20 years or so;
Titanic - I have listed my reasons in other threads why this film is honestly one of the worst pieces of tripe I have ever seen.
Driving Miss Daisy - I saw this and quite frankly can't figure it out. Seems to be more a light hearted comedy your grandmother would dig than a "best film".
Chicago - Can we ban musicals from this award permanently? The Two Towers was more deserving.
Some very good points made by all, and I thank you. I did keep my list to the more recent. I started with the most recent and worked backward. If it were a Top 10 then I would have gone back much further. However, I still stand by my positions on both "Dances With Wolves" and what I said about "JFK." And no, it's not politically motivated. I am not a republican.
Oh, and good points on "Titanic." I agree it's pretty bad and I probably should have included that one. However, my wife likes it (go figure) and I guess I let that affect my list :wink:
The list of "undeserved" far exceeds (IMHO) the list of "deserved,' but just off the top of my head, "Braveheart" would have to be included as an "undeserved" winner. While "undeserved" do not deserve the win, most of them--again (IMHO)--deserve some sort of nomination, as they are--probably--one of the better films of that year, if not the best. "Braveheart," on the other hand, should never even have been nominated. There were anyway from five to ten films that came out the year that "Braveheart" won, that deserved the nomination ahead of "Braveheart."
I was going to mention Apocalypse Now not winning the oscar in '80, but it did lose out Kramer vs Kramer, which is an excellent film. I still think AN is better though.
You know, it just occured to me that I haven't given a damn about the academy for a decade because I haven't given a damn since Shakespeare in Love. It was a fun enough movie, it wasn't *bad*, but the fact that it was nominated was just such an obvious example of...insider trading, shall we say? that nothing could make me care again.
Said multiple times, but Titanic will always win here. It was competing against The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, LA Confidential and As Good as It Gets - all VASTLY superior films. There are other cases where I might agree another film deserved it more, but none where it was so blatantly the worst of the lot on almost any level unrelated to enormous budgets.
I do wonder what goes on "behind closed doors" at the Academy sometimes. Beyond this thread's main point the fact the Lord of the Rings was basically 'held back' until Return of the King and then swept the board is just a prime example of the system not working quite as it was intended, to award the year's best films.
Braveheart is a piece of tripe and as a history geek paritcularly irritating, one because of the mistakes and alterations and two because they're ultimately not important which I feel like a moaning tit for even tutting at them. Still, English stand-up comedian Stewart Lee has a great crack at them (in Glasgow no less!) while discussing his 'Scottish' identity, also mentions Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Have a gander if you want (begins about halfway through 1 and continues in 2 if hadn't guessed :lookingup: )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4-S8n8-9RU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgm3xMWQVT0&feature=related