|
Post by inlovewithcrow on May 6, 2011 12:28:48 GMT -5
After seeing Chicago on DVD, I thought, "this may well be the dumbest choice the Academy ever made."
Though I'm still mad about Brad Davis not getting nominated for Midnight Express, this was an actual award given to what I saw as a pretty bad film.
What's your "argh" choice for the worst Oscar ever mis-awarded?
|
|
|
Post by Skyroniter on May 6, 2011 14:37:03 GMT -5
Best Picture Oscar going to that overblown soap opera, Titanic. JACKKKKKKKKKK .... ROSEEEEEEEEEE... JACKKKKKKKKKK .... ROSEEEEEEEEEE... JACKKKKKKKKKK ....
|
|
|
Post by mrmeadows on May 6, 2011 15:29:02 GMT -5
English Patient is up there, but Sky may be right.
Also, I always thought Oliver! over 2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the biggest travesties ever perpetrated by the Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by Frameous on May 6, 2011 16:36:54 GMT -5
Amen to that. Kubrick was never fully appreciated by the Academy.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on May 6, 2011 16:55:29 GMT -5
In 1994, Forrest Gump, which may be the worst movie ever made, won over...let's see now...
Quiz Show: Redford's best film, and amazingly watchable and dramatic, with incredible acting from beginning to end. Pulp Fiction: The most original movie in my lifetime, and the crown jewel in Tarantino's career. An all-time classic. Shawshank Redemption: #1 on imdb for at least 10 years running. I saw it in the theaters on opening night with a crowd of about 8 people. Even then, I knew I was watching a near-perfect movie.
1989 was almost as bad. Driving Miss Daisy won in a year that had some amazing films: Dead Poets Society, Do the Right Thing, Henry V, My Left Foot, Glory, and of course, Road House.
|
|
|
Post by Mitchell on May 6, 2011 18:06:07 GMT -5
I'd also like to nominate that melodramatic, cliched turdfest Crash. . .which beat Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck and Munich for best picture. It's easily number five in that list.
But yeah, Titanic and Forrest Gump. . .ugh. . .
|
|
|
Post by BJ on May 6, 2011 19:02:47 GMT -5
I feel that ignoring the existence of the Oscars is a good way to go through life. Also, Forrest Gump is awesome.
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Plumber on May 6, 2011 19:09:38 GMT -5
I've been aware for a while of Mr. Atari's dislike of Forrest Gump and while I would disagree with the idea that it's the worst film ever made, at the same time I'm not all that fond of it and I can sympathize with his dislike. However, on the other side of that coin, I'm also not that particularly fond of Shawshank Redemption. It strikes me as Cool Hand Luke with a lot of pretentious crap thrown on it.
Well, that was a tangent. As for the Oscars, I don't really follow them as I don't other major award festivals and most mainstream critics.
|
|
|
Post by Frameous on May 6, 2011 21:58:29 GMT -5
In 1994, Forrest Gump, which may be the worst movie ever made, won over...let's see now... Quiz Show: Redford's best film, and amazingly watchable and dramatic, with incredible acting from beginning to end. Pulp Fiction: The most original movie in my lifetime, and the crown jewel in Tarantino's career. An all-time classic. Shawshank Redemption: #1 on imdb for at least 10 years running. I saw it in the theaters on opening night with a crowd of about 8 people. Even then, I knew I was watching a near-perfect movie. I was going to bring this up, but thought I would be slaughtered for the hate on Gump. I don't think it's a terrible movie, I quite like it (but I think that's mostly to Hanks, Zemekis has never really impressed me outside of Back to the Future). On the other hand, I was a die hard Pulp Fiction fan and was crushed when it lost out. I was young at the time, so I have since seen it's best picture competitors, and would have to agree Gump is at the bottom. When they announced it as the winner, I joking proclaimed the next day's headline as 'Robert Zemekis bludgeoned to death by Tarantino with his own Oscar'. Well, I thought it was funny. I always follow the Oscars, but usually because there are nominated movies that I am rooting for. It's a tradition as well, and I'm always happy to see someone like The Coen Bros win for No Country, or Christoph Waltz for Inglorious Basterds. It's not always what I want, but still fun and exciting for me. I also follow The Golden Globes, The Independent Spirit Awards, and the Cannes ceremonies.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on May 7, 2011 0:17:22 GMT -5
Around the World in 80 Days is an overlong travelogue.
Gladiator, never got the appeal.
and while 1948's Hamlet is a top notched film. The Treasure of the Siera Madre (SP?) was a better one... and The Red Shoes was a work of pure genius, Powell and Pressburger's masterpiece. It's also a shame that Oscar ignored actor Anton Walbrook from this film as well.
|
|
|
Post by mrmeadows on May 7, 2011 1:13:37 GMT -5
Forrest Gump isn't the worst movie ever, but it's certainly overrated. Better than Pulp Fiction? Not even a contest.
Crash was a joke.
Agree with TPMJ on Gladiator....I've never even seen it because my answer to Peter Graves' famous question to Joey in Airplane! would have been "No."
|
|
|
Post by Shep on May 7, 2011 4:15:41 GMT -5
All good choices, revealing what a joke the Oscars really are.
Brando had it right. He was one of our greatest actors and he knew these things were essentially meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on May 7, 2011 5:15:20 GMT -5
^Yeah, but it's fun to talk about.
One reason not to take it too seriously is that a lot of politicking goes on. I've read that the promoting and glad handing etc, is what helped Shakespeare In Love win best picture.
Now I enjoyed Shakespeare, thought it was a nice entertaining film... but better than Thin Red Line, Private Ryan or Elizabeth?
And speaking of Elizabeth, while I love Gwyneth and she did a good job in SIL, Cate Blanchett's performance as the Virgin Queen was transcendent.
------
Oh and because it was mentioned. I liked "Driving Miss Daisy", mostly for the superb performances. I couldn't stand "Do The Right Thing", which is one the critics harped on. I thought "Glory" "Sex, Lies and Videotape" and "My Left Foot" were the better films that year.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on May 7, 2011 8:03:05 GMT -5
i'd like to nominate "braveheart." it's a great guilty pleasure and i even have it on blu-ray, but it's just not a serious movie. it's a basically mindless action movie with lots of squicky jingoistic undertones that the damage subsequently done to the mel gibson brand only underscores. and it won against some amazing movies that apparently weren't even nominated, at least for best picture, like leaving las vegas, nixon, and 12 monkeys. i mean, if you want emotional trajectory, las vegas PWNZ braveheart. if you want historical accuracy, you'd be a fool not to go with nixon. if you want visionary cultural relevance, it's 12 monkeys all the way. did we really need yet another movie that argues war is the answer to all our problems? plus, braveheart is embarrassingly homophobic. again, not surprising, given what we've subsequently learned about mr. gibson's character.
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on May 7, 2011 8:06:22 GMT -5
Now I enjoyed Shakespeare, thought it was a nice entertaining film... but better than Thin Red Line, Private Ryan or Elizabeth? This. Or how about "Blame Canada" losing? I know why it didn't win, but I still maintain it was legitimately the most original song in the field that year.
|
|