DVD Talk
An article on Oscar blunders. Do you agree or disagree? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : An article on Oscar blunders. Do you agree or disagree?


inri222
02-21-04, 10:42 AM
http://entertainment.msn.com/netcal/?netcal=817


The Best of the Worst
A look at the worst films, performances and directors Oscar has rewarded
By Dave McCoy
MSN Entertainment



The only thing Americans love more than controversy is arguing ... and for movie fans, nothing gets us more riled up than the Oscars. Danny Perry, in his book "Alternate Oscars," wrote, "Second-guessing the Academy's Oscar selections has become the national sport of the dissatisfied and disenfranchised." We argue about who should host the awards. We argue about what or who was or wasn't nominated. But perhaps the biggest arguments come after the awards are handed out. "How could they give that film Best Picture?!" "She won Best Supporting Actress?"

When you look back at the 75 years of the Academy Awards, you have that reaction a lot. Simply put, the Academy has made some huge errors, and history has not been kind to their decisions. The most obvious example is "Citizen Kane." Though it's considered by critics and cinephiles alike to be the best film ever made, the Academy didn't even consider it the best film of that year (1941), giving the award instead to "How Green Was My Valley." And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

So, what follows is our look at the Academy's biggest blunders. We're only covering the six main categories. Sorry, we can't do them all. I mean, if we covered the Best Song category, we could write an entire dissertation on the last 20 years alone.

Feel free to argue ...

Worst Supporting Actress
Since the supporting categories were started in 1937, the biggest number of Academy gaffes, by far, reside here. Look down the list of best supporting actress winners and you'll be scratching your head so many times, people may think you've contracted lice. It's so bad, in fact, that we have a tie. The old line goes age before beauty, so let's start with Helen Hayes' win as on old lady stowaway in the clichéd disaster film "Airport" (1970). In the supporting category the winners usually swing between really good newcomers and crusty "Lifetime Achievement Award" old timers; Hayes, who was 70 when she won this award, falls in the later category (she had already won Best Actress in 1932 for "The Sin of Madelon Claudet"). Though her performance is scene stealing, it's hardly Oscar-worthy (Karen Black in "Five Easy Pieces" or Sally Kellerman in "M.A.S.H." were both stronger). On the other end of the spectrum, but equally as baffling, was Marisa Tomei's win for "My Cousin Vinny (1992). You could hear an audible gasp in the audience when Tomei's one-note performance as Joe Pesci's obnoxious, street-smart girlfriend was awarded gold. Twelve years later, it's just as puzzling ... especially to actresses like Judy Davis ("Husbands and Wives") and Vanessa Redgrave ("Howard's End") who were much more deserving.

Dishonorable mentions:
Beatrice Straight -- "Network" (1976)
Judi Dench -- "Shakespeare in Love" (1998)
Whoopi Goldberg -- "Ghost" (1990)
Angelina Jolie -- "Girl, Interrupted" (1999)
Mira Sorvino -- "Mighty Aphrodite" (1995)
Maggie Smith -- "California Suite" (1978)
Ingrid Bergman -- "Murder on the Orient Express" (1973)

Worst Supporting Actor
Unlike Supporting Actress, the Academy has generally redeemed itself when it comes to Supporting Actors. In fact, poring over the list of winners, the only one that sticks out is George Burns for "The Sunshine Boys" (1975). His win isn't offensive or awful as much as undeserving. He played one half of a vaudeville act (Walter Matthau is the other half) who reunites with his old partner late in life despite the fact that they hate each other. Burns' win definitely falls under the "Lifetime Achievement Award" category, as his competition that year blows his deadpan performance away. Jack Warden in "Shampoo," Brad Dourif in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," Burgess Meredith for "The Day of the Locust," and especially Chris Sarandon for "Dog Day Afternoon" were all better choices, but apparently not sentimental enough for the Academy. Does anyone even remember "The Sunshine Boys"?

Dishonorable mention:
Jack Palance -- "City Slickers" (1991)
Ed Begley Sr. -- "Sweet Bird of Youth" (1962)
Peter Ustinov -- "Spartacus" (1960)
Red Buttons -- "Sayonara" (1957)
Don Ameche -- "Cocoon" (1985)

Worst Actress
Of all the major categories, Best Actress is the one where you don't find many mistakes by the Academy. For the most part, they got things right, or at least didn't embarrass themselves. There is always an exception, however, and here it is Elizabeth Taylor winning Best Actress for "Butterfield 8" (1960). Before the film -- a campy, nearly unwatchable drama about a prostitute (Taylor) who falls for a married lawyer (Laurence Harvey) -- was even made, there were problems. Taylor thought the script was offensive, saying, "This is the most pornographic script I've ever read. I've been [at MGM] for 17 years and I was never asked to play such a horrible role ... she's a sick nymphomaniac ..." The problem, however, was that Liz was under contract and obligated to make one more picture for MGM. After many concessions by the studio, Taylor finally agreed to make the film. Critics trashed it, but audiences ate it up, and the film was a hit. She was nominated, but the odds were against her winning her first Oscar. However, weeks before the ceremony, Taylor fell sick with a mysterious illness, and her condition was considered grave after a doctor performed a tracheotomy. Despite her sudden illness, Taylor vowed she'd make the ceremony. In a feat of disgusting empathy, the Academy awarded Liz with her first Oscar (she made the ceremony, and fainted backstage after winning) for a role she never wanted in a film that no one remembers.

Dishonorable mention:
Halle Berry -- "Monster's Ball" (2001)
Grace Kelly -- "The Country Girl" (1954)
Judy Holliday -- "Born Yesterday" (1950)
Cher -- "Moonstruck" (1987)
Glenda Jackson -- "A Touch of Class" (1973)

Worst Actor
Though the list of Academy mistakes in this category is long and impressive, we have to go with Roberto Benigni winning Best Actor for his Italian Holocaust comedy "Life is Beautiful" (1998). We'll spare you the details of why "Life is Beautiful" is one of the most offensive, callous, self-serving, sappy films to ever dupe both the nation and the Academy (it received more nominations than any foreign film in history), for that is another article. Instead, let's focus on Benigni's hyperactive, megalomaniacal "performance." He plays an imprisoned father in a Nazi death camp who tries to hide the reality of the Holocaust from his son by pretending the whole experience is a game. Benigni doesn't give a performance as much as celebrate himself and his "clever" idea. He wants to be Keaton or Chaplin, but we see his jokes coming from miles away. He's mugging and winking at the audience the whole way through and the result is nauseating. His shtick was good enough to fool the Academy, however, allowing Benigni to embarrass himself (again) on national TV by running around like a madman while gushing such drivel as "My body is in tumult ... I would like to be ... lying down and making love to everybody." Nick Nolte, who was nominated for his performance in "Affliction," was robbed.

Dishonorable mention:
Art Carney -- "Harry and Tonto" (1974)
Paul Lukas -- "Watch on the Rhine" (1943)
Dustin Hoffman -- "Rain Man" (1988)
John Wayne -- "True Grit" (1970)
Peter Finch -- "Network" (1976)
Rex Harrison -- "My Fair Lady" (1964)

Worst Director
I still remember the moment as if it were yesterday. It was March 24, 2002, I was at an Oscar party and they were just about to announce Best Director. The field was brutal: America's premier maverick Robert Altman for "Gosford Park"; genius David Lynch for "Mulholland Drive," easily the best film of 2001; one-time filmmaking master Ridley Scott for "Black Hawk Down"; rising mastermind Peter Jackson for "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring;" and Ron Howard for "A Beautiful Mind." Ron Howard. The guy that made memorable cinema such as "Gung Ho." And "EdTV." Oh, and how could we forget "Far and Away" or "Backdraft"? I was pulling for Altman -- he had never won, was 77 years old, and "Gosford Park" was remarkable -- but a win by Lynch or Jackson would have been justified too. Even a Scott win I could swallow. But they gave it to Howard. Three of the best directors in film history (plus, Ridley Scott) lost to Opie. Howard is a director who makes safe, bland entertainment intended not to ruffle anyone's feathers. A more challenging director could have made "A Beautiful Mind," and they wouldn't have changed facts about the life of John Nash to make the film more mainstream. Howard signifies everything that is boring and wrong with Hollywood, and his reward was a statue that defines the system. So, maybe, it was warranted. Still, there have been a lot of Oscar blunders, but this one rises above them all.

Dishonorable mention:
Robert Zemeckis -- "Forrest Gump" (1994)
Oliver Stone --"Born on the Fourth of July" (1989)
Leo McCarey -- "Going My Way" (1944)
Kevin Costner -- "Dances With Wolves" (1990)
Robert Redford -- "Ordinary People" (1980)
George Roy Hill -- "The Sting" (1973)

Toughest Call:
John Ford ("How Green Was My Valley") beat Orson Welles ("Citizen Kane") for Best Director in 1941. While Ford is easily one of the top five directors in film history, Welles deserved the award that year. Plus, Ford had already won an award (he went on to win four total). Meanwhile, Welles was never nominated again.

Worst Picture
In 1989, Spike Lee made his masterpiece, "Do the Right Thing," a volatile, edgy ensemble piece about deteriorating race relations in a Brooklyn neighborhood on the hottest day of the year. The film was a much-needed cinematic slap in the face: unblinking social commentary masked as entertainment. It was angry and funny and shocking, fueled by real humanity yet never yielding to cheap sentimentality. Oh, yeah, and it wasn't even nominated by the Academy for Best Picture. Instead, films like the conformity-embracing "Dead Poet's Society," the hyperbolic "Born on the Fourth of July," the schmaltzy "Field of Dreams," the biopic "My Left Foot" and, sigh, "Driving Miss Daisy" instead earned nominations. The same year that Spike Lee opened audience's eyes to the dangerously explosive nature of race relations in America, the Academy looked away, and instead retreated 30 or 40 years. They awarded "Driving Miss Daisy" the Best Picture trophy. That cozy, unthreatening exploration of a relationship between an aging Southern matriarch and her African-American driver was just the type of movie that critic David Thomson calls "feel-good liberalism" that the Academy eats up. It was nice and safe and told you exactly how to feel. The fact that Lee's film was snubbed when the nominations were announced was bad enough; that "Daisy" drove off with the Oscar for Best Picture just showed how out of touch the Academy was -- not only with cinema, but society. Irony has never been more bitter.

Dishonorable mention:
"The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952)
"Around the World in 80 Days" (1956)
"A Beautiful Mind" (2001)
"Titanic" (1997)
"Out of Africa" (1985)
"Kramer Vs. Kramer" (1979)
"Ordinary People" (1980)

gondorspit
02-21-04, 10:54 AM
I agree with a lot of what the writer is saying, especially the bit about Ron Howard, and how maybe that he WAS the right person for the oscar simply because he did define the hollywood system. The Academy Awards has always seemed like an institution that chooses the safest option-- and I have come to expect that.

On the other hand, there are a lot of movies that I haven't seen, some that have won awards.

El-Kabong
02-21-04, 11:03 AM
The oscars have been dead to me since 1977. Annie Hall over Star Wars for best picture? Oh please.

movielib
02-21-04, 11:10 AM
Agree with some, disagree with some.

Especially agree about Benigni. :yack:

RyoHazuki
02-21-04, 11:31 AM
Saying Driving Miss Daisy was the worst best picture winner is absolute bullshit.

Dustin Hoffman getting Honorable Mention for Worst Actor?

SFranke
02-21-04, 11:37 AM
The author 'supports' his opinion several times by saying a certain person deserved an award because never before had they gotten one. That's just silly. That's the purpose of a 'Lifetime Achievement' award.

Dr. DVD
02-21-04, 11:39 AM
I pretty much agree with him on his arguments, but not necessarily his choices. I definitely think he is in the right with Ron Howard and A Beautiful Mind though.
If ever there was a year Hollywood blew its own trumpet and kissed its own ass it was that year. Look at the breakdown:

Best Adapted Script: Akiva Goldsman-he wrote Lost in Space and Batman and Robin for Pete's sake. He's a hack!!!
Best Director: Ron Howard-born and raised in the Hollywood system.

As far as the picture, just seemed to say we love our Schmaltz!

SFranke
02-21-04, 11:45 AM
The Oscars winners are determined by a majority vote, correct? I don't think it's fair to assume that 'stupid Hollywood' just decided to give the award to Howard because they couldn't tell the difference between ABM and the (much better) films of that year when the possibility of the vote being split is not beyond reason.

MrN
02-21-04, 11:47 AM
I found myself agreeing with most of that article - esp. the Best Picture and Director categories.

And the Academy has given 'Lifetime' awards in the acting categories too routinely.

I do think Halle Berry deserved her award - her acceptance speech of course clouds a lot of retrospection.

HistoryProf
02-21-04, 12:16 PM
I'd have to see more about the competition against his honorable mentions to say conclusively, but I have a hard time thinking that George Roy Hill (the Sting) or Peter Finch (Network) were undeserving....and i'd agree that Halle Berry deserved her award too, it was just her speech that reeked....and that's just to name a couple....but overall his main examples are spot on - especially Ron Howard, and Beautiful Mind altogether...what a piece of schmaltzy tripe that film is.

Rivero
02-21-04, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by El-Kabong
Annie Hall over Star Wars for best picture? Oh please.

Annie Hall deserved it that year. Have you seen it recently? It's as moving and funny now as it was in '77. Meanwhile as each year passes Star Wars seems sillier and sillier, dated and childish.

NitroJMS
02-21-04, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by evitagen
The author 'supports' his opinion several times by saying a certain person deserved an award because never before had they gotten one. That's just silly. That's the purpose of a 'Lifetime Achievement' award.

He chastizes the Academy for giving George Burns a "lifetime acheivement" with the Best Supporting Actor award, but then goes on to say that Robert Altman deserved the Best Directory award because he was 77 and had an established body of work. Kinda hypocritical.

Also, the whining about Citizen Kane not winning an Oscar really needs to stop. I love the film and it is excellent, but it was really ahead of its time. It's influences wouldn't be seen til years later. The Academy just wasn't ready to give the statue to something as experimental as Kane.

Also, giving a dishonorable mention to Rex Harrison for My Fair Lady is just plain wrong. He really carried the film and it just wouldn't have worked without him. I guess that Tony Award he won for the role also means nothing then.

Robert
02-21-04, 02:24 PM
Oliver Stone for Born on the Fourth of July and Robert Zemeckis for Forrest Gump are undeserving?

I don't think so!!

Dr. DVD
02-21-04, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Rivero
Annie Hall deserved it that year. Have you seen it recently? It's as moving and funny now as it was in '77. Meanwhile as each year passes Star Wars seems sillier and sillier, dated and childish.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but not the second half.

Dr. DVD
02-21-04, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Robert
Oliver Stone for Born on the Fourth of July and Robert Zemeckis for Forrest Gump are undeserving?

I don't think so!!


Zemeckis is undeserving, Stone isn't.

Jericho
02-21-04, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by NitroJMS
Also, the whining about Citizen Kane not winning an Oscar really needs to stop. I love the film and it is excellent, but it was really ahead of its time. It's influences wouldn't be seen til years later. The Academy just wasn't ready to give the statue to something as experimental as Kane.


That just sounds stupid though. Its like you're saying its good, but the Academy couldn't realize it was good until years later. Really? It's timed dated goodness? I'll admit that some movies age better than others, but that's largely irrelevant. A movie is given best picture not because it will age well, but because of how good it is then, regardless of "aging". Especially with Citizen Kane. It is a good movie, it was a good movie in 1941, and the Academy did miss that one

The Antipodean
02-21-04, 02:51 PM
I love the Alternate Oscars book myself. It's all just in fun, some folks take this business WAYYYY too seriously IMHO.

movielib
02-21-04, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by NitroJMS
...
Also, giving a dishonorable mention to Rex Harrison for My Fair Lady is just plain wrong. He really carried the film and it just wouldn't have worked without him. I guess that Tony Award he won for the role also means nothing then.
Agree completely. I can't picture anyone else in the part.

Trigger
02-21-04, 03:48 PM
I disagree with the article... seems to be complaining about how unfair some of the choices are while at the same time accepting the stupid politics of the whole thing. Oscar results are completely meaningless... I think it's always been more about what so-and-so is wearing than about who won what.

Tarnower
02-21-04, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Rivero
Annie Hall deserved it that year. Have you seen it recently? It's as moving and funny now as it was in '77. Meanwhile as each year passes Star Wars seems sillier and sillier, dated and childish. I'm with you on this one. I have always felt that "Annie Hall" was one of the most intellectually challenging films to ever win Best Picture. It's such an observant, intelligent, truly funny film. The fact it was a comedy and won the top prize was very unexpected. I also just love Diane Keaton's performance in the film. She was so endearing and lovable. I personally think "Annie Hall" is one of the most brilliant films ever made and very much deserving to be named Best Picture. "Star Wars" is legendary, but on more of a technical level, IMO. I know it's like comparing apples to oranges, but I feel the Academy did the right thing in awarding Best Picture to "Annie Hall."

My personal choice for biggest Academy blunder was awarding Best Picture to "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan." And I really enjoy the works of Shakespeare, but I found the film just too middling and uninvolving. And Gwyneth's character far too annoying. "Private Ryan," IMO, is one of the top two or three greatest war films ever made. I was very disappointed that particular year.

KTIK
02-21-04, 03:57 PM
Shocked they didn't put Anthony Hopkin's "Best Actor" win as an honorable mention. He was only in Silence of the Lambs for 20-30 minutes.

scroll2b
02-21-04, 04:11 PM
I'm sorry, but what an offensive piece of shit of an article. Benigni was God in that movie, and should have won Best Picture, too. Titanic deserved Best Picture. And, yes, Do the Right Thing should've got more nominations, but what a rediculous article. If they hate the winners so much, don't watch the next ceremony. It's that simple.

RaynMan2019
02-21-04, 04:12 PM
Scott Glen was in Silence of the Lambs longer than Sir Anthony Hopkins! Glen shoulda won that frickin' Oscar!
Frickin' a'...

Tarnower
02-21-04, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by RaynMan2019
Scott Glen was in Silence of the Lambs longer than Sir Anthony Hopkins! Glen shoulda won that frickin' Oscar!
Frickin' a'... No.......he shouldn't have!

Tarnower
02-21-04, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by scroll2b
I'm sorry, but what an offensive piece of shit of an article. Benigni was God in that movie, and should have won Best Picture, too. Titanic deserved Best Picture. And, yes, Do the Right Thing should've got more nominations, but what a rediculous article. If they hate the winners so much, don't watch the next ceremony. It's that simple. I completely agree with you on every word of your statement. I'm so tired of people bashing "Titanic." Before that film was released, many major critics fell all over themselves with praise. USA TODAY stated that "people all over the world will be greatly moved by this film." But once it becomes phenomenally popular with the masses then I guess there must be something wrong with it. "Titanic" was a highly entertaining, intricately detailed movie that was a wonderful throwback to the days when a movie was truly a spectacle and drew-in millions of people just by the sheer good word-of-mouth. Granted, the film didn't have the most sophisticated script, but almost everything else about it was just wonderful. BTW, anyone know the latest of a SE of this pic?

Ringo20000
02-21-04, 04:24 PM
To say Robert Zemeckis was more deserving then Quentin Tarantino for Pulp Friction is a disgrace to Quentin. His direction of that movie has practically created a whole new directing style, that many have tried to imitate in recent years with very little success. He's changed film making as we know it. I don't like to compare him to Orson Welles this early in history, but he shafted for mostly the same reasons. Both were wonder kids, new to the scene, trying very experimental technique that we didn't realize how important were until years later. But alas Pulp Fiction got the shaft all around that year. Come on how can Sam Jackson not win for supporting actor, but thats another story all together.

matome
02-21-04, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Rivero
Annie Hall deserved it that year. Have you seen it recently? It's as moving and funny now as it was in '77. Meanwhile as each year passes Star Wars seems sillier and sillier, dated and childish.

Absolutely. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Crocker Jarmen
02-21-04, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Ringo20000
To say Robert Zemeckis was more deserving then Quentin Tarantino for Pulp Friction is a disgrace to Quentin. His direction of that movie has practically created a whole new directing style, that many have tried to imitate in recent years with very little success. He's changed film making as we know it. I don't like to compare him to Orson Welles this early in history, but he shafted for mostly the same reasons. Both were wonder kids, new to the scene, trying very experimental technique that we didn't realize how important were until years later. But alas Pulp Fiction got the shaft all around that year. Come on how can Sam Jackson not win for supporting actor, but thats another story all together.

Pulp Fiction is my favorite movie ever. I idolized that film when it came out (almost 10 years ago! Where has the time flown?) Still, I have no problem with Forrest Gump or Martin Landeau winning.

Tarnower
02-21-04, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Ringo20000
To say Robert Zemeckis was more deserving then Quentin Tarantino for Pulp Friction is a disgrace to Quentin. His direction of that movie has practically created a whole new directing style, that many have tried to imitate in recent years with very little success. He's changed film making as we know it. I don't like to compare him to Orson Welles this early in history, but he shafted for mostly the same reasons. Both were wonder kids, new to the scene, trying very experimental technique that we didn't realize how important were until years later. But alas Pulp Fiction got the shaft all around that year. Come on how can Sam Jackson not win for supporting actor, but thats another story all together. Yeah, but Sam Jackson did lose to Martin Landau's Bela Lugosi in "Ed Wood." Landau gave what was one of the greatest performances I've ever seen as Bela. I loved everything about "Pulp Fiction" (best film of the '90s IMO), but I don't feel too bad about Jackson losing to Landau.

jfoobar
02-21-04, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by NitroJMS
He chastizes the Academy for giving George Burns a "lifetime acheivement" with the Best Supporting Actor award, but then goes on to say that Robert Altman deserved the Best Directory award because he was 77 and had an established body of work. Kinda hypocritical.

That isn't what he said. He mentioned Altman's age and his oeuvre as his personal justification for "pulling for him."

Jason
02-21-04, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by El-Kabong
The oscars have been dead to me since 1977. Annie Hall over Star Wars for best picture? Oh please.

Now now, that choice just shows how smart the Academy members actually are. It took all those years until DVDTalk came along before I found out that Luca$ is suckekeke, but the Academy members knew it all along. Bravo!

jfoobar
02-21-04, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by RaynMan2019
Scott Glen was in Silence of the Lambs longer than Sir Anthony Hopkins! Glen shoulda won that frickin' Oscar!
Frickin' a'...

It's "Glenn", for openers. Secondly, his performance (which is astoundingly wooden and uninspired) is one of the worst things abou SoTL. Dennis Farina played a far better Jack Crawford than Glenn.

Don't get me wrong, I really like Scott Glenn, but SoTL was hardly the zenith of his career to date.

jfoobar
02-21-04, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by scroll2b
I'm sorry, but what an offensive piece of shit of an article. Benigni was God in that movie, and should have won Best Picture, too. Titanic deserved Best Picture. And, yes, Do the Right Thing should've got more nominations, but what a rediculous article. If they hate the winners so much, don't watch the next ceremony. It's that simple.

I don't recall the author mentioning that he "hate(d) all the winners" or even most of them. I strongly suspect that his article was written from a place of genuine affection for both film and the Academy Awards.

I'm sure your "logic" makes sense on some planet in the galaxy...just not this one.

jfoobar
02-21-04, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Tarnower
I completely agree with you on every word of your statement. I'm so tired of people bashing "Titanic." Before that film was released, many major critics fell all over themselves with praise. USA TODAY stated that "people all over the world will be greatly moved by this film." But once it becomes phenomenally popular with the masses then I guess there must be something wrong with it. "Titanic" was a highly entertaining, intricately detailed movie that was a wonderful throwback to the days when a movie was truly a spectacle and drew-in millions of people just by the sheer good word-of-mouth. Granted, the film didn't have the most sophisticated script, but almost everything else about it was just wonderful.

I think a good script is a necessary element of any film that is to be labeled as the "Best of the Year", but that is just me.

I think someone could probably get a PhD in sociology for accurately describing the Titanic phenomenon. As I have no aspirations for a doctorate in one of the most soft of the soft sciences, I'll keep my remarks brief:

The initial hugely positive response that Titantic received is fairly easy to understand. The film itself is a remarkable spectacle, calling on the latest in visual effects as well as simply astounding production design in both scale and detail. The film has action, drama, romance, some well-placed comedic moments, and revolves around one of the great tragedies of the 20th century. It features attractive, young actors and even has a little full-frontal thrown in for kicks and giggles.

So why is it so heavily criticized now? The most commonly-suggested theory is the one you made; elitism. The hoi polloi loved it and ran to see it time and again in droves. Therefore, it must be crap, right? I suspect that there is, indeed, more than a little bit of truth to this.

On the other hand, I don't think that covers it. The problem is that Titanic is both a remarkably rewatchable and substantially flawed film. The flaws are not very apparent on first viewing as they are so overshadowed by the spectacle and sheer visual power of the film. Critics generally only get to see a film once before reviewing it so high marks were seen pretty much across the board. Most of us have seen it several times over the years, and the flaws become more pronounced each and every time we watch it.

Coral
02-21-04, 08:01 PM
Don't know why Gladiator wasn't a Dishonorable mention. I hated the film, but even if I enjoyed it - I don't know how anyone can call that the best picture.

Annie Hall deserved to win Best Picture over Star Wars. SW doesn't stand the test of time. People were blown away simply because of the special effects, yet the acting was poor and some of the dialog wasn't very good.

Many of my Oscar complaints aren't even because of who/what won, but the fact that many fantastic films/actors/actresses weren't even nominated.

Most recent example... City of God deserves a Best Picture nomination (and victory). It got shafted bigtime.

rexinnih
02-21-04, 08:06 PM
I may actually have to watch Annie Hall one of these days. I may finally be over Star Wars losing. Hey it was very traumatic for an 8 year old.

Hokeyboy
02-21-04, 09:15 PM
Star Wars doesn't have a single moment that compares with the brilliance of the "Dinner Table Scene" in Annie Hall...

RocShemp
02-21-04, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Coral
Don't know why Gladiator wasn't a Dishonorable mention. I hated the film, but even if I enjoyed it - I don't know how anyone can call that the best picture.

I loved Gladiator but I agree that it did not deserve to win. It's just a revenge flick set in the days of the Roman Empire. And it was not even Russell Crowe's best performance, though he was damn good in it.

dhmac
02-21-04, 11:00 PM
Good article, and I agree with almost all of the selections (especially Roberto Benigni. Anyone who has seen Charlie Chaplin's best films can easily recognize what a lousy rip-off Life Is Beautiful is of that great director/comedian's work).

I also think Gladiator, which I like, didn't deserve the Best Picture Oscar, but the year 2000 was somewhat of a weak year for movies, so its win wasn't nearly as much a sham as Rocky beating out Network, All The President's Men, and Taxi Driver -- what a disgrace!

As for the original Star Wars and Annie Hall, in my book they are both great A+ movies that have and will continue to stand the test of time, but I think Annie Hall deserved the Best Picture Oscar more.

Groucho
02-21-04, 11:19 PM
Annie Hall deserved the win, and this is coming from somebody who loves Star Wars.

However, it's one of the few times the Academy got it right. I disagree with their picks for just about every winner, in every major category. But that's okay. It's a committee system, and you get what you get out of it.

BabiG
02-22-04, 01:54 AM
I'm curious what the author has against Network...

Groucho
02-22-04, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by BabiG
I'm curious what the author has against Network... Well, it's not exactly a film that's friendly to the media.

Shannon Nutt
02-22-04, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by RyoHazuki
Saying Driving Miss Daisy was the worst best picture winner is absolute bullshit.

Dustin Hoffman getting Honorable Mention for Worst Actor?


You're absolutely right...the writer is also out of his mind with his best director pans.

Patman
02-22-04, 08:54 AM
Isn't the Oscar awarded by plurality vote? Meaning a film that gets 21% could walk away with the Oscar if the rest of the 4 nominees get 20%, 20%, 20%, 19% of the votes?

Tarnower
02-22-04, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Patman
Isn't the Oscar awarded by plurality vote? Meaning a film that gets 21% could walk away with the Oscar if the rest of the 4 nominees get 20%, 20%, 20%, 19% of the votes? Unless the rules have changed lately, I believe the winner needs a higher percentage of votes over the field to win. For example, if Charlize Theron got 41% and Keaton got 40%, with the rest of this year's Best Actress nominees splitting the rest of it up, the Charlize Theron and Diane Keaton would both wind up as the official winner of Best Actress. It would be a tie. It happened most famously in the late 1960s, with both Katharine Hepburn ("The Lion in Winter") and Barbra Streisand ("Funny Girl") declared the winner in a tie. Rumor had it that one of the women had just 1% more votes. Academy supposedly states that sole winner needs at least 2% or more of the vote to win. Now, don't quote me on that. It's been a long time since I read that. At least fifteen years. It may be changed since then.

movielib
02-22-04, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by BabiG
I'm curious what the author has against Network...
I don't know but what I have against Network is that it is satire with a sledgehammer.

Tarnower
02-22-04, 09:44 AM
"Network" is just flat-out brilliant. Finch was amazing and deserved the win. His competition in 1976 was Giancarlo Giannini ("Seven Beaties"), William Holden (also for "Network"), Sylvester Stallone (yo "Rocky") and Robert De Niro ("Taxi Driver"). I know many will argue that De Niro deserved it more, but I still say Finch gave a remarkable performance. "Network" was also light years ahead of its time. Just check it out now and see how it's even more timely in today's culture. Especially with the huge surge in reality television. I actually think the film was the best of that particular year. "Rocky" was a wonderful film, but "Network" was so much more vital and exciting.

Patman
02-22-04, 09:58 AM
Okay, but it means that it doesn't require a majority to win an Oscar, which is what I was getting at.

Tarnower
02-22-04, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Patman
Okay, but it means that it doesn't require a majority to win an Oscar, which is what I was getting at. You are correct.

Groucho
02-22-04, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Patman
Okay, but it means that it doesn't require a majority to win an Oscar, which is what I was getting at. You are correct. Otherwise, we'd pretty much have "No winner" in just about every major category every year.

Tarnower
02-22-04, 10:03 AM
Geez Groucho. Could we have synchronized that response any closer. :lol:

MrN
02-22-04, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by scroll2b
If they hate the winners so much, don't watch the next ceremony. It's that simple.


Actually, its not. The winners are plastered in just about every magazine, newspaper etc.

scroll2b
02-22-04, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by JustinS
I don't recall the author mentioning that he "hate(d) all the winners" or even most of them. I strongly suspect that his article was written from a place of genuine affection for both film and the Academy Awards.

I'm sure your "logic" makes sense on some planet in the galaxy...just not this one.


Well, I strongly suspect that the word "hate" doesn't have to be literally used in order to get the message across. Perhaps for some of those listed under dishonorable mention he had some unkind words, if not a mean-spirited agenda. However, what he had to say about Benigni was downright hateful, in my opinion, and it was the main reason for my responding.

"We'll spare you the details of why "Life is Beautiful" is one of the most offensive, callous, self-serving, sappy films to ever dupe both the nation and the Academy...."

Dupe both the nation and the Academy? I completely disagree. One of the most offensive? I think not. Self-serving? Care to explain? Sappy? No, he employed a lot of emotion effectively. And so what if he did? What, that's no longer allowed? What's wrong with being "hyperactive"? How was he "megalomaniacal"?

"Benigni doesn't give a performance as much as celebrate himself and his "clever" idea. He wants to be Keaton or Chaplin, but we see his jokes coming from miles away."

I never thought so.

"He's mugging and winking at the audience the whole way through and the result is nauseating."

Again, I completely disagree.

His shtick was good enough to fool the Academy, however, allowing Benigni to embarrass himself (again) on national TV by running around like a madman while gushing such drivel as "My body is in tumult ... I would like to be ... lying down and making love to everybody."

Don't tell me this is not hateful. This was his triumphant moment, and I was so glad I recorded it. It was pure and heartfelt, and I replayed it over and over again for days. I remember the way I felt when the film ended in the theater. It was as if Benigni had ripped my heart out and thrown it away, and I had never felt such an experience before, not even with Braveheart. It was an amazing tragedy, and an amazing comedy.

So don't tell me that I must have the logic of an alien just because I take great offense to what this guy had to say about one of the great films and performances of 1998. If we disagree, fine, but don't go insulting me because I flamed this guy. Remember, we’re members here. It’s against the rules to do that to each other. Disputes may arise, but let’s keep it clean, okay Earthling? ;)

Tarnower
02-22-04, 02:55 PM
scroll2b, I also was very moved by "Life is Beautiful." For one thing, it's got a magnificent score (which also won an Oscar). Another is the emotional impact the film had on me. That ending was just something else. I loved Benigni in it, although I don't know if he really should have won Best Actor for it. Personally, I thought Ian McKellen should have got it in 1998 for "Gods and Monsters." Or even Edward Norton for "American History X." FYI, other nominees that year were Nick Nolte for "Affliction" and Tom Hanks for "Saving Private Ryan" (awesome year for actors, no?!). Not to slight Benigni, but I felt "Life" was more a triumph of writing and directing than acting. Certainly deserving of its other wins, though: Best Foreign-Language Film and Original Dramatic Score.

Neeb
02-22-04, 03:17 PM
>>I love the Alternate Oscars book myself. It's all just in fun, some folks take this business WAYYYY too seriously IMHO.<<

That book needs a new edition.

Where is Danny Peary hanging out anyways? His books and writing were great. And while we're at it- can we get a new volume of Cult Movies?

Doctor Gonzo
02-22-04, 03:55 PM
never cared much for annie hall, love star wars, but my pick for best pic that year is close encounters of the third kind...

Andalusia
02-22-04, 04:37 PM
I haven't seen "Chicago" (but I've seen the production, with Bebe Neuwirth, oh joy!), but was it really the most deserving that year?

Tarnower
02-22-04, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Andalusia
I haven't seen "Chicago" (but I've seen the production, with Bebe Neuwirth, oh joy!), but was it really the most deserving that year? IMO....No! I thought "Chicago" was rousing and highly entertaining, but I felt the Best Picture Oscar should have gone to "The Pianist." And, for a while, it seemed like it just might: having won Best Director, Actor and Screenplay. I thought the "Chicago" train had stalled-out at Best Supporting Actress. I think time will look upon "The Pianist" as much more substantial and important than "Chicago."

conscience
02-22-04, 06:06 PM
I diagree with supporting actress.

I loved Marisa Tomei's performance and it was a nice change from the dramatic tones we see every year.

conscience
02-22-04, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by evitagen
The author 'supports' his opinion several times by saying a certain person deserved an award because never before had they gotten one. That's just silly. That's the purpose of a 'Lifetime Achievement' award.

I have actually read his book "Alternate Oscars" and he is such a hypocritical person.

For example: He says he wants to give his "alternate oscar" to the best performance of the year, while in many different cases he says "so and so has already gotten my alternate oscar so I will go with so and so."

complete b.s.

Tsar Chasm
02-22-04, 06:14 PM
two words:

sour grapes.

Tarnower
02-22-04, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by conscience
I diagree with supporting actress.

I loved Marisa Tomei's performance and it was a nice change from the dramatic tones we see every year. Agree. She not only stold "My Cousin Vinny," she owned it as well. Throughout Oscar history, the Academy has, every now and then, awarded a very outgoing comic performance (usually in the supporting categories) with an Oscar. The other ones that come to mind are Judy Holliday in "Born Yesterday" (Actress), Kevin Kline in "A Fish Called Wanda" (Supporting Actor) and George Burns in "The Sunshine Boys" (Supporting Actor). You're right, it's a nice change from all the somber performances that usually receive the award.

Hiro11
02-22-04, 07:33 PM
Here's what I think are the worst Oscar choices for Best Picture were (hint: I'm a guy)

Terms of Endearment over The Right Stuff. Does anyone even watch TOE anymore?
Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Same question.
Ghandi over ET. Gimme a break on this one, it should have been in the bag for Steven. Ghandi is pretty terrible, IMO.
The Sting over The Exorcist or American Graffiti. The Sting is, IMO, one of the most overrated movies around.

celluloidwisdom
02-22-04, 08:23 PM
I love the Exorcist (one of my favorite films), but The Sting is a great movie that holds up very well. Robert Shaw should have been nominated in the Supporting category (though Houseman still wins it).

Here's one I haven't seen mentioned: Robin Williams for Good Will Hunting. Ugh. If ever a performance cried "please, give me an Oscar, I'm emoting," it was that one. Burt Reynolds for Boogie Nights. That's my pick.

Agree 100% with the critiques of Life is Beautiful, though it's evident several posters here disagree. Ditto A Beautiful Mind.

I still think Dog Day Afternoon deserved more gold, but it's hard to argue against One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Still, I think this was Pacino's best work...

LivingINClip
02-22-04, 08:42 PM
You know something, I rarely ever agree with the Oscar's, so guess what I do? I don't keep up with them.
:)

movielib
02-22-04, 09:09 PM
Another big :up: to Marisa Tomei. I loved that performance.

Dean Kousoulas
02-23-04, 09:33 AM
I don't know about the rest of you, but I refuse to watch the Oscars again after I saw Julia Roberts steal the Best Actress oscar from Ellen Burstyn in Requiem For A Dream, and more recently, Roger Moore winning Best Documentary for that POS movie "Bowling For Columbine"

Groucho
02-23-04, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Dean Kousoulas
Roger Moore winning Best Documentary for that POS movie "Bowling For Columbine" <center>http://www.lobosco.com/root/images/smoking/moore.jpg

"You take that back!"</center>

Cusm
02-23-04, 10:26 AM
This guy has no mention of Pacino in the worst character ever recorded captured on film? This is one of the worse travesties the academy has ever perpetrated.

Jazzbutcher
02-23-04, 02:36 PM
Wasn't listed, but the Hoop Dreams snub was absolutely criminal.

Sally Field for Places in the Heart. Admittedly a weak year, but c'mon!

PopcornTreeCt
02-23-04, 02:49 PM
I don't think Dustin Hoffman should be on that list. i just watched that movie a few nights ago and thought his performance was one of the best of all-time.

Johnny Zhivago
02-23-04, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Hiro11
Ghandi over ET. Gimme a break on this one, it should have been in the bag for Steven. Ghandi is pretty terrible, IMO.


ET? :whofart: :hscratch: Given the nominees of 82, Ghandi is by far the best film...

Of course, this Saving Private Ryan nonsense needs to stop as well... ;) From the 98 nominees, The Thin Red Line is the best of the bunch. :p

This kind of stuff happens every year, the Academy is no different than you and I... They're human and have opinions. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong... Personally, I think there's too much weight placed on the Oscars... Winning or losing doesn't change anything. Good is good, crap is crap.

conscience
02-23-04, 08:17 PM
it's Gandhi you guys.

RayChuang
02-23-04, 11:20 PM
I think in terms of Oscars that were wrongly awarded, I think there are relatively few such disasters! :)

A few comments though:

1. Annie Hall winning over Star Wars is actually not a surprise, especially since AMPAS members were getting a bit desperate to finally reward Woody Allen's above-average career as filmmaker and actor up to that time. Fortunately, Annie Hall is a superb movie, probably one of Allen's finest works.

2. The more I think about it, Shakespeare in Love was in many ways a better film than Saving Private Ryan. Other than that extremely realistic and bloody scene at the beginning of the movie, Saving Private Ryan wasn't really that great of a movie. Meanwhile, Shakespeare in Love was wonderful and funny from start to finish.

3. I think there were two reasons why Gandhi won over E.T.: The Extraterrestrial: 1) AMPAS voters are suckers for big epic films and 2) AMPAS voters got a bit sick and tired of the marketing and product tie-ins to E.T.

scroll2b
02-24-04, 12:22 AM
I agree with the marketing and product tie-ins bit. There's too much hoopla today. Remember that animated Prince of Egypt movie? They had fast-food tie-ins that some people questioned, I think. Toys, too. Right?

Jaymole
02-24-04, 07:42 AM
The oscars have been dead to me since 1977. Annie Hall over Star Wars for best picture? Oh please.

I'm not a fan of the Academy awards, (and I agree with a lot of what the author writes), but Annie Hall winning Best Picture was one of the shining moments in its history. And the fact that it pisses off Star Wars fans makes it that much more of a great moment in Oscar history.

Mysteryfan
02-24-04, 09:02 AM
Since no one has mentioned it, my choice for biggest blunder is The Color Purple - should have won for picture, actress and director.

WillySi7
02-24-04, 12:23 PM
taking into consideration i havent been such a fan of movies until about 2-3 years ago, i havent really seen many of these pre 90s films mentioned in these posts.. and i dont know if im much a judge of performance, acting or directing (i dont think ive seen a best picture nominee pre 1990).. i still know this:

"this film sucked"
(about the same film) " i loved this film, it was brilliant"
"it sucked"
"i think it was brilliant too"
"i thought it sucked too"
etc, etc, etc,

aaaaaaaaaaaahhh.. *$!

i would love to watch some older films in order to broaden my perspective on the film industry and its accomplishments in general, but i have no idea which films to watch.. =) this thread is not a good place for reccomendations, every one is shot clean out of the sky the minute its mentioned.. im sure ill watch some of the films listed but not know how to judge their performance, simply judge it on whether i liked it or not (that doesnt count for much these days.. maybe i need to take a film class)

on another note, since it seems like films being nominated is almost as important as a film or person winning the oscar, maybe the academy should extend the list from 5 or 6 (whatever it is) to 8-10 nominees.. but i know that would probably get old, and bore most of the TV audience to sleep

scroll2b
02-24-04, 03:38 PM
allmovie.com

Michael Corvin
02-24-04, 08:00 PM
The worst offenders of late to me anyway...

the aforementioned Gladiator.. blah...
Ron Howard sympathy Oscar for not winning one for Apollo 13

and the biggest offender...

Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. :down: Haven't watched the oscars since. SIL is a decent little flick but not even in the same ballpark as SPR. What a joke.

Ergyu
02-24-04, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Tarnower
I completely agree with you on every word of your statement. I'm so tired of people bashing "Titanic." Before that film was released, many major critics fell all over themselves with praise. USA TODAY stated that "people all over the world will be greatly moved by this film." But once it becomes phenomenally popular with the masses then I guess there must be something wrong with it. "Titanic" was a highly entertaining, intricately detailed movie that was a wonderful throwback to the days when a movie was truly a spectacle and drew-in millions of people just by the sheer good word-of-mouth. Granted, the film didn't have the most sophisticated script, but almost everything else about it was just wonderful. BTW, anyone know the latest of a SE of this pic?


hehe, it's kinda like bands "selling out."

jarsim
02-25-04, 01:18 AM
"films like the conformity-embracing "Dead Poet's Society,"

Could someone explain this statement? What was this film exactly conforming to? non-conformism? suicide?

The author did go overboard on his criticism of Benigni as others have mentioned, especially about his Oscar win reaction and 'speech'. So what he doesn't express himself as a native speaker of English would ... can this author even form a sentence in another language?

Coral
02-25-04, 07:35 AM
and the biggest offender...

Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. :down: Haven't watched the oscars since. SIL is a decent little flick but not even in the same ballpark as SPR. What a joke.

I disagree.

I thought SIL was much better than SPR - but perhaps it still didn't deserve Best Picture.

Take away the opening 15 minutes of SPR and you really don't have much of a film.
The characters were paper thin, and SS used alot of cliches and relied on cheap tricks to shock the audience.

I thought The Thin Red Line deserved the Oscar that year - and is a tremendous film - which isn't just a film about war, it's deeper than that.

Tandem
02-25-04, 08:38 AM
When I look at the lists of Oscar winners, most of my favorite films are in the Sound, Sound Editing, and Visual Effects catagories, not the Best Picture catagory.

Example - 1966: Winner for Sound and Sound Effects: Grand Prix. Winner for Best Picture: A Man For All Seasons.

jaeufraser
02-25-04, 03:51 PM
It's difficult to say whether his choices are worth mentioning or not. I would say Gladiator is one of the more glaring choices, including Russell Crowe as best actor. I mean, the movie is a decent action flick with nice production design, but I don't give it any more credit than that. And Crowe gave a worthy performance, but his work in A Beautiful Mind and the Insider was so much more complex and interesting, it boggles my mind he won for this one.

But in general I won't aruge with the Academy's choices. SPR over SIL? Well, they're both excellent flicks and I can see the choice of either. Now Judi Dench for supporting actress? That was idiotic...she was in the movie for like 5 minutes.

Buttmunker
02-16-07, 09:56 PM
http://entertainment.msn.com/netcal/?netcal=817

Howard is a director who makes safe, bland entertainment intended not to ruffle anyone's feathers. A more challenging director could have made "A Beautiful Mind," and they wouldn't have changed facts about the life of John Nash to make the film more mainstream.

Now, now. Changing facts in biopics is just the way its done, and sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Nobody panned 1942's Yankee Doodle Dandy for being historically inaccurate (aside from George M. Cohan himself, who after the premiere is known to have said, Great picture, who was it about?

Sometimes you have to change facts around, or make stuff up, to keep the pace of the movie and to entertain. Anybody going into a movie expecting a history lesson shouldn't be going to the movies.

Buttmunker
02-16-07, 10:21 PM
Worst Supporting Actress

Dishonorable mentions:

Judi Dench -- "Shakespeare in Love" (1998)

You simply cannot disrespect the Queen. I actually saw SIL in the theaters, and I was in absolute AWE when Judi Dench made her appearances. Absolute awe!!

She may have been in only 8 -15 minutes of the whole film, but wow. What an intense performance. To not have honored Judi Dench with the Oscar would have been like throwing your own mother down a flight of stairs on her birthday while holding your newborn child.

Doctor Gonzo
02-16-07, 10:24 PM
Annie Hall and Star Wars -- both classics in my book. But...

MY best picture award that year? Close Encounters of the Third Kind

RayChuang
02-16-07, 10:31 PM
Annie Hall and Star Wars -- both classics in my book. But...

MY best picture award that year? Close Encounters of the Third Kind

One thing hurt Close Encounters of the Third Kind: the storytelling was a bit uneven, and it felt a bit hokey whenever Richard Dreyfuss was on the screen.

By the way, I think the reason why Peter Jackson didn't win Best Director for The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was because AMPAS voters pretty much decided to given Jackson the Best Director Oscar for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as a cumulative award for the entire three-film series. Esssentially, the 11 Oscars won by RoTK was to award the work on all three films.

Mondo Kane
02-17-07, 12:48 AM
Since I'm taking part of the Oscar challenge here, probably the biggest blunder I've come across is the no-nomination for James Horner's score for Glory.
I noticed that Horner recieved a nom for Field of Dreams that same year and Im sure they didn't want to nominate the same guy twice, but what a MAJOR snub that is.

starman9000
02-17-07, 09:42 AM
Agree with a lot of his selections, but his explanations are pretty terrible. Like Ron Howard, he is complaining more of his previous works, like he should not deserve an Oscar ever because he directed EdTV. Should Hillary Swank be stripped of her Oscar because she did the Next Karate Kid?

Fincher Fan
02-17-07, 10:23 AM
Should Hillary Swank be stripped of her Oscar because she did the Next Karate Kid?

Damn straight.

mijorico
02-17-07, 10:55 AM
Agree with a lot of his selections, but his explanations are pretty terrible. Like Ron Howard, he is complaining more of his previous works, like he should not deserve an Oscar ever because he directed EdTV.

Yeah, I agree with some of his selections, too. But, for the most part, the author of that article just seems to have a bug up his ass. With how he rags on the comedic performances that won (Palance and Tomei), I'm surprised Kevin Kline isn't on that list. Comedies are so rarely recognized by the Academy, I don't much give a shit who they beat when they actually do manage a win.

And, as you said, the reasoning behind some of his objections is ridiculous. He greatly exaggerated to try to make his points. Damn drama queen.

dhmac
02-17-07, 12:13 PM
You simply cannot disrespect the Queen. I actually saw SIL in the theaters, and I was in absolute AWE when Judi Dench made her appearances. Absolute awe!!

She may have been in only 8 -15 minutes of the whole film, but wow. What an intense performance. To not have honored Judi Dench with the Oscar would have been like throwing your own mother down a flight of stairs on her birthday while holding your newborn child.
Her entire screen time was about 6 minutes total. IMO, that's far too short to be even "Supporting Oscar nomination worthy" much less the Oscar winner because it's basically a glorified cameo, not a true supporting performance. But I think Academy members were blinded by the reputation of Dame Judi Dench and gave her the award for her reputation more than the performance itself.

JIF
02-17-07, 03:18 PM
It's a shame that A Few Good Men was nominated for Best Picture and Malcolm X was snubbed.

Malcolm X only garnished 2 Oscar nominations. 1 for Denzel and 1 for Best Costume. The Academy couldn't have made a bigger statement than that to Spike Lee.

The Bus
02-17-07, 03:35 PM
I still can't believe Nadoolman got shut out in '88.

Bastards. I'm still reeling.

Mondo Kane
02-17-07, 11:31 PM
It's a shame that A Few Good Men was nominated for Best Picture and Malcolm X was snubbed.

Malcolm X only garnished 2 Oscar nominations. 1 for Denzel and 1 for Best Costume. The Academy couldn't have made a bigger statement than that to Spike Lee.

I was thinking about this after re-watching the film last weekend, but (Dare I say) I was too brainwashed by the academy to notice that it deserved more than 2 noms.

Yet, in all honestly, I feel that the movie really takes off after Malcolm Little becomes Malcolm X.
Yes, I know it's part of the structure to see how "Red" was living his life beforehand as a thug (As in the script, rooted from "The Autobiography of Malcolm X") but the first half of the film, while flashy and at times, certainly meaty (Thanks to Denzel's performance) still has me nodding off.

It isn't untill Malcolm interacts with Betty (Another nomination-casualty for denying Angela Basset) along with the editor's fantastic task until the final frame, that this film really emerges as a work of undeniable art.
I mean, just look at how the rallies and speeches never become monotonous. Check out the scope and beauty of the pilgrimage to Mecca. And the intensity of "Shotgun" looming around in doom as the attackers search to silence Malcolm.

It's still just the first act that gets in the way that prevents a viewer like me sticking glued to the seat.

Terrell
02-18-07, 12:42 AM
I agree with the first part of your statement, but not the second half.

Dude, it's Rivero! Did you expect any different? He hates Stars Wars. At least he does now.

Personally, Star Wars, Annie Hall, and the other three films were all deserving, and none moreso than the other.

As for arguing on which movie deserved what, it's completely pointless because it's all highly subjective. There is little to no objectivity when it comes to picking a Best Actor, Picture, or whatever. It's subjective. You can't reasonably choose one of the other. You have 5 movies or 5 actors up for the award. You go ask 10 people and you'd probably get 5 different answers. This thread pretty much proves it with people disagreeing with each other and the article in question. That's why the Oscars are a joke and should never be an arbiter of what's great or what's best. True, we've all argued over this before, pulling for our favorites and disappointed when they didn't win. But at the end of the day the Oscars are nothing more than an entertainment show.

There's more objectivity in picking Best Visual Effects than there is in picking Best Picture or Actor.

The Cow
02-18-07, 12:51 AM
Dude, it's Rivero! Did you expect any different? He hates Stars Wars. At least he does now.

Somebody needs to check the calendar.

JIF
02-18-07, 07:55 AM
I was thinking about this after re-watching the film last weekend, but (Dare I say) I was too brainwashed by the academy to notice that it deserved more than 2 noms.



I actually lost a lot of respect for the Academy Awards after the Malcolm X snub.

Ok, Spike was vocal about the racism in the Hollywood system (i.e. he criticized the Academy for awarding Driving Miss Daisy because they are more comfortable with that era of race relations) and he may have been obnoxious about it, but he made sense.

Cannes created an award especially for Samuel L. Jackson's fantastic performance in Jungle Fever and was overlooked by the Academy.

The Academy of the 80's and early 90's virtually ignored films of contemporary black characters. If you were a slave/ex-slave (Glory) or a submissive black (The Color Purple), you were guaranteed a nomination, but if you were a strong black character, you were ignored (Boyz N' the Hood).

Still, back then, I blamed less on the Academy than I did for Hollywood. How could the Academy be at fault if Hollywood green-lit few films depicting strong black contemporary characters?

Buttmunker
02-20-07, 02:53 PM
Annie Hall winning over Star Wars is actually not a surprise, especially since AMPAS members were getting a bit desperate to finally reward Woody Allen's above-average career as filmmaker and actor up to that time. Fortunately, Annie Hall is a superb movie, probably one of Allen's finest works.

They could have honored Woody Allen and George Lucas - give the Best Director Oscar to Lucas, and the Best Picture Oscar to Annie Hall.

They've done this in the past, so I don't see why they had to honor Woody Allen to the point of giving him every Oscar:

-Best Screenplay
-Best Actor (nominated)
-Best Director
-Best Picture

There's such a thing as overkill. Annie Hall was a good movie, but it wasn't that good! George Lucas' Star Wars - man, nobody had seen anything like that, not ever!! Yes, the acting was a little wooden, but the story and the special effects were totally amazing. Its what movie-making is all about!

At least it got nominated, though, I must say that. King Kong was totally snubbed back in 1933, and that, friends 'n neighbors, was what movie-making was all about!

The Ferret
02-20-07, 04:54 PM
They could have honored Woody Allen and George Lucas - give the Best Director Oscar to Lucas, and the Best Picture Oscar to Annie Hall.

They've done this in the past, so I don't see why they had to honor Woody Allen to the point of giving him every OscarIt's actions like these that discredit award shows. There should be no sentimental compromises, each award should be independent. A Best Director award should go to the best director, best picture to the best picture, etc... If one movie happens to be the best in each category, so be it.

Buttmunker
02-20-07, 07:03 PM
Well, the history of the Academy - especially lately - shows that they can't really pick a bonafide winner.

Look at The Godfather. In 1972, The Godfather won the Best Picture Oscar, but director Francis Ford Coppola lost out to Bob Fosse (Cabaret) for Best Director.

Now, was Annie Hall better than The Godfather? I don't think anybody can say that it was - I know, I know, its comparing apples to oranges because one film is a drama and the other is a comedy, but we're talking about the Best Picture of the Year, and that category really doesn't see the distinction between dramas and comedies (or musicals). Yet The Godfather didn't sweep the Oscars in 1972; Annie Hall did in 1977.

Fair? Somehow, I don't think so. Some of that pie from 1977 should have been divied up between the two films.

cultshock
02-20-07, 08:06 PM
Dude, it's Rivero! Did you expect any different? He hates Star Wars. At least he does now.



Yep, according to rumours, that's the real reason why he was banned back in 2005.

jfoobar
02-20-07, 08:14 PM
You simply cannot disrespect the Queen. I actually saw SIL in the theaters, and I was in absolute AWE when Judi Dench made her appearances. Absolute awe!!

She may have been in only 8 -15 minutes of the whole film, but wow. What an intense performance. To not have honored Judi Dench with the Oscar would have been like throwing your own mother down a flight of stairs on her birthday while holding your newborn child.

She won for playing the queen alright, just a different queen. Dench's award was a cumulative award based on her previous astounding performance in Mrs. Brown. Oscar does this sort of thing frequently. Whoopi's win was as much for The Color Purple as it was for Ghost, for example.

Buttmunker
02-21-07, 07:33 AM
Judi Dench is great in everything, as she is one of our finest performers! Who else is like Judi Dench, who does a great performance in every film they do? ... hmmm....

...gee, nobody. Not even Meryl Streep has done Oscar-calibrated performances in every film...sometimes Meryl does a "fun" movie, just something to have fun with, like riding the rapids, or having your head on backwards, or playing opposite a rhino (in "She Devil"), or being a tiny ant...I don't think we'll see Madam Judi Dench doing any "fun" movies. She's as serious as a haart attakk.

Drexl
02-21-07, 08:30 AM
Judi Dench is great in everything, as she is one of our finest performers! Who else is like Judi Dench, who does a great performance in every film they do? ... hmmm....

...gee, nobody. Not even Meryl Streep has done Oscar-calibrated performances in every film...sometimes Meryl does a "fun" movie, just something to have fun with, like riding the rapids, or having your head on backwards, or playing opposite a rhino (in "She Devil"), or being a tiny ant...I don't think we'll see Madam Judi Dench doing any "fun" movies. She's as serious as a haart attakk.

I can see what you're getting at. Even in films which could be considered "fun" such as the James Bond films, she commands respect.

Bobby Shalom
02-21-07, 11:16 AM
One thing that keeps coming to my mind when reading all of these posts: AMPAS is made up of individuals. They do not convene and talk about who should get the award and why.

People continually talk about the Academy snubbing someone. A snub may have garnered a lot of votes - just not enough to win a majority. You get enough voices thrown in to a voting situation and usually you get a watered down mainstream majority.

Jon2
02-21-07, 06:46 PM
Arguing about the awards is becoming (like so many other thing theses days) like arguing about politics and/or religion.

And about as pointless.

These sort of things are mostly just particular people spouting their particular opinions...usually with little in the way of objective facts to support their particularly biased conclusions.

And...you know what they say about opinions... everyone has one.

AnonomusBob15
02-22-07, 12:20 PM
Hoop Dreams.

DIdn't this snub actually change the absence of documentary filmmakers in the voting process?

Either way, it's one of the greatest movies of all time. I think it transcends the documentary genre and holds up on its own as a fine drama. The fact that it wasn't nominated is a crime.

Rypro 525
02-23-07, 12:43 AM
I can see what you're getting at. Even in films which could be considered "fun" such as the James Bond films, she commands respect.
:cough:the chronicles of Riddick:cough:

Neeb
02-23-07, 04:02 AM
I love the Alternate Oscars book myself. It's all just in fun, some folks take this business WAYYYY too seriously IMHO.

I wish Peary would do an updated version taking it to 2006.. But since he hasn't...

Alternate Oscars 1992 to 2006.

1992- Won: Unforgiven. Shoulda Won: The Player
1993- Won: Schindler's List. Shoulda Won: Schindler's List.
1994- Won: Forrest Gump. Shoulda Won: Shawshank Redemption (over Pulp Fiction)
1995- Won: Braveheart. Shoulda Won: Heat.
1996- Won: The English Patient. Shoulda Won: Fargo.
1997- Won: Titanic. Shoulda Won: Titanic (LA Confidential is overrated with a terrible ending)
1998- Won: Shakespeare in Love. Shoulda Won: Thin Red Line
1999- Won: American Beauty. Shoulda Won: The Matrix.
2000- Won: Gladiator. Shoulda Won: Traffic
2001- Won: A Beautiful Mind. Shoulda Won: Fellowship of the Ring.
2002- Won: Chicago. Shoulda Won: The Pianist
2003- Won: Return of the King. Shoulda Won: Return of the King.
2004- Won: Million Dollar Baby. Shoulda Won: Sideways
2005- Won: Crash. Shoulda Won: History of Violence
2006- Won: (TBD) Shoulda Won: Children of Men.

Well, that was fun.

Drexl
02-23-07, 07:39 AM
:cough:the chronicles of Riddick:cough:

Well, I haven't seen that one. :)

Buttmunker
02-23-07, 07:40 AM
Nor I.

porieux
02-23-07, 07:53 PM
I'm not a fan of the Academy awards, (and I agree with a lot of what the author writes), but Annie Hall winning Best Picture was one of the shining moments in its history. And the fact that it pisses off Star Wars fans makes it that much more of a great moment in Oscar history.

QFT. Ditto with Jethro Tull winning out over Metallica in the Grammys.

Although ironically enough I am a fan of early Metallica as well as the original cut of Star Wars.

kahuna415
02-24-07, 08:04 AM
One thing hurt Close Encounters of the Third Kind: the storytelling was a bit uneven, and it felt a bit hokey whenever Richard Dreyfuss was on the screen.

By the way, I think the reason why Peter Jackson didn't win Best Director for The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was because AMPAS voters pretty much decided to given Jackson the Best Director Oscar for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as a cumulative award for the entire three-film series. Esssentially, the 11 Oscars won by RoTK was to award the work on all three films.

I agree with you on your point, but I truly believe that Jackson didn't win was because the Academy was waiting on the final product of all three films. The Two Towers was a phenomenal film as well, but again Jackson didn't win it either. We as the public were awed when the first film came out. We said to ourselves "Holy crap! what an awesome flick..lets hope that the next one is as good as this and he doesn't f' it up". And of course when The Two Towers came out, we crapped our preverbial pants and nodded to each other that we knew that the The Return of the King was going to be a hell of a finale. The Oscars he received were a culmination of all three films and the movies were not a trilogy, but one big movie as a whole and hence judged upon it. It was filmed on location for over 7 years, so in my personal opinion and I think the publics as well, its one big movie.

Annie Hall vs. Stars Wars...hmm. I haven't yet seen AH and I can't comment on this just yet. As for Stars Wars, I'm a huge fan and was lucky enough at the young tender age of 10 to see this for myself. I've never really been a Woody Allen fan, although I thought Hannah and Her Sisters was well done. SW has had a bigger impact on me and I do see many flaws in the movie. Flubs, errors and the script. It was meant for all ages, to me it was ahead of its time and still very magical to me. I promise to come back with a response on the AH after I have seen it and agree or disagree.

jfoobar
02-25-07, 11:06 AM
Alternate Oscars 1992 to 2006.

1992- Won: Unforgiven. Shoulda Won: The Player
1993- Won: Schindler's List. Shoulda Won: Schindler's List.
1994- Won: Forrest Gump. Shoulda Won: Shawshank Redemption (over Pulp Fiction)
1995- Won: Braveheart. Shoulda Won: Heat.
1996- Won: The English Patient. Shoulda Won: Fargo.
1997- Won: Titanic. Shoulda Won: Titanic (LA Confidential is overrated with a terrible ending)
1998- Won: Shakespeare in Love. Shoulda Won: Thin Red Line
1999- Won: American Beauty. Shoulda Won: The Matrix.
2000- Won: Gladiator. Shoulda Won: Traffic
2001- Won: A Beautiful Mind. Shoulda Won: Fellowship of the Ring.
2002- Won: Chicago. Shoulda Won: The Pianist
2003- Won: Return of the King. Shoulda Won: Return of the King.
2004- Won: Million Dollar Baby. Shoulda Won: Sideways
2005- Won: Crash. Shoulda Won: History of Violence
2006- Won: (TBD) Shoulda Won: Children of Men.


OK, I'll have a go, restricting choices only to those nominated in a major category (as to consider all films from the respective years would take hours):

1992- Won: Unforgiven.
None of the Best Picture nominees really deserved it with The Crying Game probably being the best of the lot. I would have to say Indochine or Glengarry.

1993- Won: Schindler's List.
SL does have a few flaws but it is hard to argue with the win. The Remains of the Day and Shadowlands both would have been worthy winners as well.

1994- Won: Forrest Gump.
An entirely undeserving winner. It probably deserved to make lots of $$$, which it did, but this was a pathetic choice for BP. As I have not yet seen Three Colors: Red and can't judge it on its merits, I would have given the award to Quiz Show.

1995- Won: Braveheart.
Braveheart was the best choice among the five BP nominees. Honestly, nothing in the major categories is an obvious better choice either, although I probably would have voted for Dead Man Walking.

1996- Won: The English Patient
One of the more-critcized winners and I can't fathom why. TEP was a remarkable film in every way. Fargo is a more accessible film and has a storyline more likely to appeal to mainstream audiences but it is hardly a better film. The Academy got this one right.

1997- Won: Titanic
Titanic was a substantial accomplishment but it had so many glaring flaws (mediocre performances in several key roles and a shallow and manipulative screenplay with lots of one-dimensional characters) that it should never have even received its BP nomination. Of the BP noms, Good Will Hunting and As Good as it Gets were probably the most complete films. I would have voted for Mrs. Brown.

1998- Won: Shakespeare in Love
Another undeserving winner but I also fall into the Thin-Red-Line-is-Visually-Stunning-Crap crowd so I obviously don't agree with you there. Elizabeth was the best film among the BP noms (Gwyneth over Cate or Emily for Best Actress, are you kidding me???). All others consider, I'd probably still vote for Elizabeth.

1999- Won: American Beauty
I am also a bigger fan of Beauty than many here so I wasn't upset to see it win. That being said, The Insider was the best of the BP noms and probably of the whole lot.

2000- Won: Gladiator
Probably where Oscar got it most wrong of all of the winners over this timeframe. Really, really bad decision here. I can't really argue with your choice of Traffic overall. I am also a huge fan of You Can Count On Me but it's lack of any flashy elements tends to disqualify it.

2001- Won: A Beautiful Mind
ABM is another Oscar miscue, to be sure. Also, if Pete Jackson and company were going to win for any of the trilogy, it should have been this year since the first one was easily the best one. Overall, it was a pretty weak year for nominees and In the Bedroom should have won.

2002- Won: Chicago
Chicago won the "Oh-Wow, Someone-Made-A-Good-Musical-For-The-First-Time-In-Years" award but this was another weak year for nominees so it really wasn't that horrible of a choice. I would have probably voted with you for The Pianist but without any real conviction.

2003- Won: Return of the King
This was obviously an award for the entire trilogy, but that basis is both unjust and unfortunate since RotK really wasn't that strong of a film standing on its own. I would have voted for Lost in Translation among the BP noms but ultimately I would have voted for 21 Grams in a heartbeat.

2004- Won: Million Dollar Baby
Not a bad choice by Oscar. I have to admit I still have not seen Ray. Considering the other three, I probably would have voted for Sideways also but MDB was very good. Scrolling down the list of other major nominees, Eternal Sunshine is the only one that gives me pause as a complete film, although both Maria Full of Grace and Vera Drake were also excellent.

2005- Won: Crash
Another weak group of BP noms. Of those five, I would have chosen Good Night, and Good Luck. Looking further, I would have voted for either Syrianna or The Constant Gardener.

Since I tend to see film on video after the fact (only seen 3/5 BP noms, for example), I am categorically unqualified to offer an educated opinion on this year's nominees.

NitroJMS
02-25-07, 01:06 PM
1999- Won: American Beauty. Shoulda Won: The Matrix.


1999 had about 10 films that were stronger than The Matrix, American Beauty amongst them. Sure, The Matrix was a fun popcorn movie, but Dark City did it better the year before, only without the hype and marketing blitz. 1999 was the year of Fight Club, Three Kings, The Sixth Sense, The Insider, Toy Story 2, Eyes Wide Shut, Being John Malkovich, The Cider House Rules, Magnolia and The Talented Mr. Ripley and probably more I'm forgetting. It was probably the last great year for film.

dhmac
12-18-08, 07:42 PM
With the current Best/Worst Picture Winners by Decade threads, maybe it's time to bump this thread again.

story
12-18-08, 09:46 PM
saying driving miss daisy was the worst best picture winner is absolute bullshit.+9

story
12-18-08, 09:47 PM
1999 had about 10 films that were stronger than the matrix...+9000

DeFan
12-18-08, 10:48 PM
Disagree. It's easy to look back and see films that haven't aged well. Lets see how silly Dave McCoy's picks look in 20 years.

Ronnie Dobbs
01-13-09, 09:16 PM
Titanic was the worst picture to win IMHO.

TheySentYou
01-13-09, 11:38 PM
2005 was such an atrocity in my eyes... when 'Crash' took home Best Picture.

and 2006's lack of love towards 'Babel'

and 1999's dismissal of 'Magnolia' being nominated for anything but supporting actor and screenplay (should've received the awards for best picture, director, and cinematography for sure)

Sanjuro37
01-13-09, 11:52 PM
Titanic was the worst picture to win IMHO.

That's a funny way of spelling "Crash."

Really, I hate Titanic, but it's just mediocre. Mediocre acting (who knew how great Leo and Kate would turn out?), mediocre script, GREAT effects, but just overall boring as sin. But not offensive, like Crash.

PopcornTreeCt
01-14-09, 12:12 AM
The English Patient is the worst movie to win Best Picture.

GeorgeP
01-14-09, 09:45 AM
"Ordinary People" and Redford both deserved their 1980 Oscars IMHO. Sick of the bashing of this film when no one makes a peep about "American Beauty" and its win in '98.

Nick Martin
01-14-09, 10:14 AM
That's a funny way of spelling "Crash."

Really, I hate Titanic, but it's just mediocre. Mediocre acting (who knew how great Leo and Kate would turn out?), mediocre script, GREAT effects, but just overall boring as sin

I love Titanic. I love it so much I made an extended version of it on DVD.

To quote YOU - Sanjuro37, as you said this about Buffy season 6:

Fuck the haters.

DVD Josh
01-14-09, 10:29 AM
the english patient is the worst movie to win best picture.

qft.

DJLinus
01-14-09, 11:07 AM
In the latest issue of EW they organized a revote from "agents, producers, directors, actors, and other film professionals," focusing on the years 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003.

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20007870_20164474_20250883,00.html

I haven't read it (yet).

MoviePage
01-14-09, 11:17 AM
The English Patient is nowhere near the worst movie to win Best Picture. I've seen them all, and I think it's close to the top of the list.

I've never understood the lack of love (or at least, the lack of like) this movie gets from some people. The average Joe who didn't get it because it's "boring"? Sure. People on a movie forum who have at least a bit of appreciation for the art of cinema? No.

starman9000
01-14-09, 11:18 AM
In the latest issue of EW they organized a revote from "agents, producers, directors, actors, and other film professionals," focusing on the years 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003.

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20007870_20164474_20250883,00.html

I haven't read it (yet).

Not bad, Cate Blanchett crushed Gwyneth in their revote for 98.

Sean O'Hara
01-14-09, 12:11 PM
To say that Crash, or Titanic, or The English Patient is the worst Oscar winner shows a real lack of historical perspective.

I mean, have none of you seen The Greatest Show on Earth or Cimmaron? TGSoE is particularly galling since it beat out Singing in the Rain, Shane, and The Quiet Man.

jjcool
01-14-09, 12:24 PM
First off, who the fuck is Dave McCoy and why should I take his views over the views of the Academy?
Actually surprised that I didn't see Crash mentioned. Around oscar time, you always here whining that Crash won best picture that year.

Rockmjd23
01-14-09, 12:25 PM
Actually surprised that I didn't see Crash mentioned.
The article was written before Crash won.

dom56
01-14-09, 12:32 PM
I'm still pissed that Pan's Labyrinth didn't win Best Foreign-Language Film.

Solid Snake
01-14-09, 12:38 PM
So so true...Del Toro is amazing, and totally deserved a win for it.

Rockmjd23
01-14-09, 12:39 PM
I was mad at first about that too, but then I saw The Lives of Others and I think they made the right choice. Rarely do I love two foreign films in the same year.

inri222
01-14-09, 12:40 PM
The Lives of Others deserved it.

Drexl
01-14-09, 01:20 PM
In the latest issue of EW they organized a revote from "agents, producers, directors, actors, and other film professionals," focusing on the years 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003.

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20007870_20164474_20250883,00.html

I haven't read it (yet).

Yeah, I read that a few days ago. It's interesting how many of them turn out the same. Many of the changes are obvious oversights like Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan over Shakespeare in Love.

I wish they had done 2005 and 2000. Not only would I like to see Brokeback Mountain likely get Best Picture, but I'd be curious to see if they'd vote for Gladiator now.

eXcentris
01-14-09, 01:56 PM
The English Patient is nowhere near the worst movie to win Best Picture. I've seen them all, and I think it's close to the top of the list.


Yup.


I've never understood the lack of love (or at least, the lack of like) this movie gets from some people. The average Joe who didn't get it because it's "boring"? Sure. People on a movie forum who have at least a bit of appreciation for the art of cinema? No.

They should. "Out of Africa" gets the same type of "it's slowwww and boringgggg" responses.

Dean Kousoulas
01-14-09, 02:07 PM
I'm still pissed that Julia Roberts beat Ellen Burstyn's performance in Requiem for a Dream.

LiquidSky
01-14-09, 02:31 PM
The English Patient is nowhere near the worst movie to win Best Picture. I've seen them all, and I think it's close to the top of the list.

I've never understood the lack of love (or at least, the lack of like) this movie gets from some people. The average Joe who didn't get it because it's "boring"? Sure. People on a movie forum who have at least a bit of appreciation for the art of cinema? No.

I have a great appreciation for the art of cinema. I also love period piece films, Ralph Fiennes, and Kristin Scott Thomas. All said, sitting through "The English Patient" was sheer torture for me.

LiquidSky
01-14-09, 02:32 PM
I'm still pissed that Julia Roberts beat Ellen Burstyn's performance in Requiem for a Dream.

Me too. Also Gwynneth's win over Cate Blanchett.

Rypro 525
01-14-09, 03:00 PM
I remeber the lord of the rings fanboys crying when Jim Broadbent won for Iris in 2002

MoviePage
01-14-09, 03:43 PM
I remeber the lord of the rings fanboys crying when Jim Broadbent won for Moulin Rouge in 2002

Fixed. :)

(Yes, I know he was nominated for Iris, but his performance in the far more widely-seen MR was just as responsible for the win, if not more so.)

Also, I like Broadbent a lot, but Ian McKellen should have an Oscar by now for God's sake. How about the Roberto Benigni Best Actor travesty?

Drexl
01-14-09, 03:58 PM
Also, I like Broadbent a lot, but Ian McKellen should have an Oscar by now for God's sake. How about the Roberto Benigni Best Actor travesty?

He actually finished 4th in the EW re-vote, behind Benigni. :(