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.

Absolutely.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Star Wars doesn't have a single moment that compares with the brilliance of the "Dinner Table Scene" in Annie Hall...

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.

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.

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.

I'm curious what the author has against Network...

Well, it's not exactly a film that's friendly to the media.

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

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.

I don't know but what I have against Network is that it is satire with a sledgehammer.

"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.

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.

You are correct. Otherwise, we'd pretty much have "No winner" in just about every major category every year.