Comments on: 11 Questionable Best Picture Oscar Wins

By: Armando

Armando — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:41:51 +0000

Almost a good list. I haven’t seen How Green Was My Valley, but I think Citizen Kane was great and it is definitely hard to beat. Even though I haven’t seen My Fair Lady, I really don’t think Dr. Strangelove could be better than it, since it was very boring, and not really funny, the only good thing about it was Peter Sellers’ performance and the social comments. I agree with Taxi Driver over Rocky, although I would have chosen Network over both, because it is a brilliant film. Definitely Star Wars should have won because Annie Hall is a very lacking film and I choose Star Wars even though I’m not really a fan. I loved Raiders of the Lost Ark so I guess I agree with you on that. No comment for 1990. In 1994 I agree that Pulp Fiction should have won and not Forrest Gump or The Shawshank Redemption (which I find very good but very overrated as well). In 1997 no movie could compete with Titanic and much less The Full Monty which was not even in the same level as Titanic in any way. No comment for 1998. My pick is definitely still Chicago for 2002 and in 2004, not Million Dollar Baby but obviously not Sideways which is an irrelevant film, definitely my choice is The Aviator.

By: Shaz

Shaz — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:42:52 +0000

Oscars have always been strange and I guess will continue to be. Gangs of New York is probably one of Scorcese’s worst. I watched it twice and remember thinking each time “Boy, what a mess!”

Not that “The Departed” was any great. And therein lies the problem with Oscars. There irritating tendency to honor someone for their lesser work to make up for failing to recognise their earlier, superior one. I think they are losing importance for the modern audience all over – the constant slide in their ratings is well enough indicative of this.

I too hate Gump with a vengeance. “Life is like a box of chocolates you never know which one you’ll choke on”. Rubbish. Also “Saving Private Ryan” is a complete cheat. A war monger of a film masquerading as anti-war film. Let’s fight, this is the most decent thing we can do in this war (paraphrase of Tom Sizemore line)Huh? I can’t believe Indiana Jones even got nominated. Shawshank, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction are much worthy. And I also can’t believe they passed Citizen Kane!

Great idea for an article, by the way. But not very well written.

By: jim

jim — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 04:42:57 +0000

to the contrary, the departed’s win is a blot on scorsese’s legacy when his better films have lost. the remake didn’t do justice to the far-superior original. judged on its own de/merits: departed has good acting/direction, although you can poke many (justified) holes in the plot.

By: flakeyfoont

flakeyfoont — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:00:07 +0000

My humble opinion: Forrest Gump is a huge preposterous turd. It may feel great to americans to see such an onanistic look at their own history but overseas it’s just one of these ‘american flag’ BS.
The Shawshank redemption should have won, such a perfect story, acting, directing… It is aging far better than pulp fiction.

By: amparo

amparo — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:42:06 +0000

It is terrible to hear that Denzel Washington is not warranted by Training Day, but did not say that it was not given by Malcolm X and Hurricaine for political reasons.

By: tstar69

tstar69 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:26:28 +0000

Very interesting, thoughtful and enjoyable article.

By: Smed

Smed — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:10:52 +0000

Chariots Of Fire, while not a slam-bam action movie, is a very important film, telling the true story of two runners competing for Britain in the 1924 Olympics. One was a Jew, the other a devout Christian. It tells an important and compelling story. Just not one that you want to watch 21 times in 21 days.

By: 1-900-HEY-NICK

1-900-HEY-NICK — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:17:55 +0000

1994? Gump was, is, and will always be, a piece of shit. Gump was not a good person. Goodness requires being aware of a spectrum of choices and consciously and deliberately making a good one. Being too stupid to have that awareness and making “good” choices by accident doesn’t make a character good, it just makes them an idiot. The dumb luck of a bumbling moron doesn’t make a compelling story to me. What it did have was the overwrought, telegraphed emotional puppetry that the Academy loves.

For me, Pulp Fiction, like so much of Tarantino’s work, is a collection of cool and self-aggrandizing scenes and lines that don’t in any way come together to make a coherent movie. It’s enjoyable, but not actually a good film.

Shawshank was a soup-to-nuts exceptional execution of an exceptional story. This one should have been no contest.

Good Will Hunting is so far superior to Titanic that I don’t even know where to begin.

By: Tracy Falbe

Tracy Falbe — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:21:13 +0000

I remember bitterly the win of Forrest Gump over Shawshank Redemption. Pathetic. (Please note, I like Pulp Fiction a lot too, but Shawshank touched me.) 1990 was a tough year. Good Fellas vs. Dances with Wolves could go either way for me. The Oscars lost all prestige for me since Shakespeare in Love won best picture. What a stupid, ridiculous movie, totally lacking in entertainment value.

Dr. Strangelove should have won. It’s a masterpiece. I can’t go a year without watching it, and it gets better every time I watch it. I even refer to my new flat panel TV as the “big board.”

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:13:14 +0000

Regarding comments in the above-mentioned post about “Chariots of Fire,” you really do need to see it. As much as I love “Raiders,” there simply is no comparison, and “Raiders” just had the misfortune of coming out the same year as one of the most sublimely profound movies ever made. It’s just an apples-organges thing. “Raiders” is perhaps the greatest popcorn movie ever made and a loving tribute to 1940s movie serials and action-adventure movies, but “Chariots” gets at man’s inner convictions and integrity, with a key point being the personal faiths of the men involved in the race including one (Eric Liddell, a comitted Christian) who refuses to run on Sundays. As for not hearing anything about it, you’re just not traveling in the same circles as the fans of the film, who are legion the world over. There was even a one-man play that was a sequel about what happened to Eric Liddell AFTER the events depicting in the movie, and talk of turning that stage show into a movie. It is a movie that has impacted people’s lives in major ways, inspiring them to reinforce their own convictions. The little movie that could… did.

By: TM

TM — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:22:13 +0000

+1 on LA Confidential. Most egregious loss in last 20 years of Oscars.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:15:44 +0000

I have boycotted the Oscars ever since Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction.

How can the Academy reward feel-good schlock like Forrest Gump over of a paradigm changing film like Pulp Fiction? I have no use for any institution that would do such a thing.

Chicago vs. Gangs of New York is another good example of the Academy’s myopia.

By: middleman

middleman — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:02:50 +0000

’94 and ’97 were indeed exceptional years. I liked your take on ’94 in particular. Gump bashing is on the rise in recent years, and you correctly state that it was a worthy film, even if Shawshank and Pulp were equally worthy.

But in the ’97 discussion, how do you leave LA Confidential out of the discussion? That movie was freaking awesome! If you haven’t seen the film, check it out. It is one step below Goodfellas level.

That movie had great writing and direction, plus one heck of a cast: Russell Crowe, Kevin Spacey, Guy Pierce, James Cromwell, Danny Devito, David Strathairn, and Kim Bassinger.

[Editor's Notes: Actually, LA Confidential had been listed originally as a worthy contender, it seems I must have accidentally deleted it! Sorry TheMovieGod!]