Years the Film Academy got it wrong

[shortylickens]

LA Confidential was an AWESOME movie, but there was nothing really special about it.
The movie was an old formula polished to perfection.
Titanic was just well made sap.
Good Will Hunting was actually somewhat original and special (not 100 percent original, but different from most of the mass produced crap at the time).

 

[Imp]

No, I'm pretty sure I got it right. BILL MURRAY YOU BORE THE SHIT OUT OF ME.


(i love art films too, but lost in translation never did and probably never will do it for me)

Lost in Translation is watchable just because of the set-up with two white people in Japan. I remember seeing the last half-hour a few times just because it was in Japan, Bill Murray and ScarJo were there. Didn't really appreciate it until I saw at least half the movie; I still haven't seen the entire thing all the way through.

Crash: I've tried watching it in the middle a few times because I was flipping channels. I've seen the cop-rape scene, but just can't bring myself to watch Ryan Phillipe and whoever the hell else is in it. It's apparently similar to Magnolia, which is AMAZING, but Magnolia has an all-star cast and enough stuff to get your attention even if you land in the middle.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

we both agree titanic should not have won, and i agree LA Conf was great, i just liked GWH more

GWH and LAC were two of the best screenplays ever written for sure. I thought L.A. Confidential was more deserving of Best Picture because of the scope of the story, the attention to period detail and the number of great performances from so many different actors and actresses. GWH was essentially a buddy movie, it was two guys sitting around talking. A very good buddy movie, but nowhere near the level of filmmaking that went into L.A. Confidential. I thought Spacey was better in LAC than he was in either one of his Oscar roles and he wasn't even the standout.

 

[CPA]

Since 1990 I would say the big errors were:

1996- The English Patient
over Fargo, Jerry Maguire, Shine, and Secrets & Lies
1998- Shakespeare in Love
over Elizabeth, Life is Beautiful, The Thin Red Line, and Saving Private Ryan
2004- Million Dollar Baby
over The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray, and Sideways
2009- The Hurt Locker
over too many to list

Though in many cases there would be more except many movies are shunned for nominations because of their genre or general appeal.

Million Dollar Baby is great. I have no problem with it winning over that list.

 

[Ichinisan]

What were the years/films in the past that you felt that the Academy Award winner choices were just plain... off?

A year that comes to mind for me is 1994:

Nominees:
Forrest Gump
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Pulp Fiction
Quiz Show
The Shawshank Redemption

Winner:
Forrest Gump

I like Forrest Gump, but seriously: how did that film trump Pulp Fiction?

Sound off, peeps.

I thought people wanted Shawshank to win.

 

[shortylickens]

Saving Private Ryan was good but again, nothing truly special.
Sideways was too weird to be a winner in mainstream Hollywood. Aviator was good but again, not special.
I havent seen too many hit movies after 2004. No basis for comparison.
I like Batman, but its obviously not Oscar material.

 

[Ichinisan]

Never saw Traffic, but I thought it was strange when Steven Soderbergh won "Best Director" over Ridley Scott...for choosing to make a movie about the futility of America's war on drugs?

That's Entertainment!(tm) :awe:

 

[ImpulsE69]

For me was the year Jethro Tull beat out Metallica...oh wait.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Saving Private Ryan was good but again, nothing truly special.

As opposed to the magnum opus that is Shakespeare in Love?

 

[slayer202]

Crash sucked. Forrest Gump wasn't very good. Usually the best movies aren't even nominated

 

[Train]

I would have voted for Shawshank, hands down.

But given the choice between FG and Pulp, sorry FG was a better movie overall.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Damn 94 rocked. Shawshank, FG, and Pulp Fiction. That was probably the top of the mountain there.
You could make a valid argument from any of those.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Crash sucked. Forrest Gump wasn't very good. Usually the best movies aren't even nominated

Forrest wasn't any good? That's a head scratcher.

Yes Crash sucked badly

 

[slayer202]

Quiz show > Forrest Gump

 

[vailr]

If you don't like the Oscar picks, just ignore them and look for the Golden Globe awards, instead.

 

[silverpig]

Shawshank from the OP list

 

[CZroe]

Crash: I've tried watching it in the middle a few times because I was flipping channels. I've seen the cop-rape scene, but just can't bring myself to watch Ryan Phillipe and whoever the hell else is in it. It's apparently similar to Magnolia, which is AMAZING, but Magnolia has an all-star cast and enough stuff to get your attention even if you land in the middle.

That's not the scene you need to see.

This...
followed by this.

Earlier in the movie: Man's daughter buys bullets for his gun. Asks for "the ones in the red box." Racist shop keeper asks if she knows what those are and she just demands them.

 

[Beev]

I've never liked a single Tarantino movie, so I personally hope he never wins.

Shakespeare in Love is my biggest "WTF?"

 

[RavenSEAL]

So much hate for The Hurt Locker...

The movie was fantastic...way better than Avatar or Up. Although I honestly wouldn't have minded if Up had indeed won.

 

[mugs]

2002:

2005:
Crash - won

Munich was better. No interest in Crash.

Crash was one of the worst Best Picture winners ever.

Pulp Fiction and Quentin Tarantino are overrated (especially among young males). Inglourious Basterds was great though.

 

[tboo]

2002 for me. Gangs of New York should have won Best Picture over Chicago. Also, Daniel Day-Lewis should have won Best Actor over Adrien Brody.

This. I lost all respect for the academy when they screwed over DDL

 

[dainthomas]

I would have voted for Shawshank, hands down.

But given the choice between FG and Pulp, sorry FG was a better movie overall.

If any of those three movies had been released in any other year, they probably would have won. But for that year, has to Pulp or Shawshank (I'd pick Pulp personally). FG was fine, but always struck me more as a boomer nostalgia-fest.

 

[HendrixFan]

I'd say most years the Academy gets it wrong, so I have stopped paying attention for the most part.

Forrest Gump was/is a great movie. It was difficult to foresee at the time but Pulp Fiction was revolutionary in the way films were made. Nearly every movie that comes out these days draws a ton of inspiration from Pulp Fiction and Fight Club. Not in content, but in the visual style and construction.

1999 was the worst year for the Academy, not only did a turd like American Beauty run away with awards, it did so in what was the strongest year for movies in my lifetime. Fight Club, Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, The Matrix, The Insider, and Being John Malkovich are all upper tier movies; three of which are in my top 10 of all time. How they all got shafted (some lacking even in nominations) I'll never know.

 

[slayer202]

This. I lost all respect for the academy when they screwed over DDL

The movie was crap though :sneaky:

 

[slayer202]

and it looks like fight club is the most overrated movie of all time.