Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

I would have given it to "The Thin Red Line."

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

:up:

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

In hindsight, yeah, Star Wars really should've won for 1977, but I'm OK with Annie Hall winning because I think it too is a classic. And although a win by Star Wars would've been groundbreaking for a sci-fi/fantasy film, Annie Hall winning was groundbreaking given that a comedy winning Best Picture is very rare.

The main Oscar travesty IRT Star Wars movies, IMO, is The Empire Strikes Back not even getting a Best Picture nomination in 1980. It deserved at least a nod and is about a million times better than the winner that year, Ordinary People. (And given that The Godfather, Part II had already broken the bias against sequels for Best Pictures a few years earlier, so even that isn't a good excuse for the lack of nomination.)

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

Right, "3 Women" probably should have won in '77.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

I wish the Academy would start having some sort of "recognized classic" award, much like the lifetime achievement award, in which they select a movie that's over 25 years old to give an Oscar to as a recognized film classic. That way they can make up for the unfortunate snubs over the years, such as Citizen Kane and 2001: A Space Odyssey, by finally given them an Oscar.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

Two very different films about WWII (and both excellent), but I still feel Spielberg is the superior one.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

Dangerous Liaisons over Rain Man (which was the Forrest Gump of the 80s) for Best Picture of 1988. Glenn Close over Jodie Foster for Best Actress for that same year too.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

::thumbsup:

I completely agree. Dangerous Liaisons (1988) is an amazing film that doesn't get the appreciation it deserves. (Even Keanu Reeves' wooden performance actually works in the movie because it fit his young character to be naive and easily manipulated.)

I've heard some people say that they think Valmont was a better version of this story, but I don't get where they are coming from with that opinion. Valmont was a good movie, but it had the wrong overall tone and utterly failed when it came to the subtext in the story.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

One thing the Academy did right was when it gave a Special Achievement Oscar to The Empire Strikes Back at the 1981 Academy Awards ceremony (aka which was the one for calendar year 1980 movies).

It was one of the few times the Academy ever did something like this for a movie (the last time they gave one out was in 1995 for Toy Story) but it is something I wish they would do again.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_mzbH3DD73M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

Cruise over Coburn for Magnolia.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

That comment alone proves how neutered films have become if Rain Man is the Forrest Gump of the 80s. I liked DL as far as costume period pieces go, because the story outdoes the costumes for a change. Your movie has a hard time back then winning BP if the director wasn't nominated as well.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

There was a movie in there that TM had planned, but then he decided to f-over his cast and went for atmosphere/tone instead. He should have hired no-name actors, since the well-known cast was distracting and served no purpose.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

There were a lot of no name actors in the film. Brody, John C Reily, Jim Cavizel, etc were unknown at the time. Malick cast unknowns as the privates and stars as officers. It all makes perfect sense. Only flaw: a lot of those unknowns turned out to have big careers.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

Not enough, especially when the unknowns were supposed to have huge parts, like Adrien Brody, but were dropped because Malick wanted to focus on Caviezel's boring character. John C. Reilly made a name for himself after Boogie Nights, so not completely unknown. Having well-known actors pretty much make cameos was just distracting. No reason to have Sean Penn, George Clooney, Woody Harrelson, John Travolta, or John Cusack in the movie at all, as they added nothing to the movie.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

Coburn won the previous year (1998). Michael Caine won over Cruise (1999). I didn't care who won that year as long as it wasn't the kid from The Sixth Sense.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

A few from my list, some not even nominated

1933 King Kong or Duck Soup over Cavalcade
1938 Adventures of Robin Hood over You Can't Take it with You
1939 Wizard of Oz over Gone with the Wind
1955 Court Jester over Marty
1958 Big Country over Gigi
1960 Magnificent Seven over The Apartment
1961 Guns of Navarone over West Side Story
1974 The Conversation over Godfather II
1983 A Christmas Story over Terms of Endearment
1985 To Live and Die in LA over Out of Africa
2006 United 93 over The Departed

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

I don't think To Live or Die in LA was made in 1985 so it could not compete against Out of Africa.

Back to the Future > Out of Africa

Out of Africa looked like pure Oscar bait and I don't think anyone remembers or seen that movie since 1985.

Back to the Future might be a fun silly popcorn movie and is not one of those movies you think about during awards season but if Chicago and Shakespeare in Love can win best pictures why not Back to the Future?

You will not get a Citizen Kane type movie every year up for nomination.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

i once said that and some member in here dug in and defended Out of Africa against all reason. Wish you were here then.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

The Right Stuff should have won over Terms of Endearment.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

I had the titular line in Out of Africa.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

I don't understand this statement. You mean shot, or released? Or referring to my typo?


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090180/

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

Because every year I like going through this intellectual exercise (intellectual masturbation since few will read this wall of text). Best Pictures only:

1990: Not a Scorsese fanboy, but Goodfellas should have won over DWW. Not a horribly unjust winner, though.

1991: I never felt like SotL was Best Picture quality, but it was a remarkably bad year for film and I can't think of anything better that was remotely mainstream.

1992: One of my biggest objections. I just didn't think Unforgiven was all that good at all, let alone a BP winner. I would have personally awarded it to One False Move but, among the nominees, The Crying Game should have won.

1993: Cannot complain about Schindler's, but did want to point out what an astoundingly good film The Remains of the Day was.

1994: Gump? No. Very entertaining pablum? Yes. Best Picture? No. Andie MadDowell's horrible miscasting rules out Four Weddings, so I would have awarded it to Quiz Show.

1995: Can't really complain too much about Braveheart winning among the nominees. Personally, would have given it to Dead Man Walking but it was not nominated. Sense and Sensibility (nominated) was very good though. Never saw Il Postino, to be fair.

1996: I will defend The English Patient to the end of the earth. It is an exquisite film. It also got robbed for Adapted Screenplay.

1997: Titanic won for obvious reasons, but the somewhat cartoonish characters disqualify it in my mind. Probably would go Good Will Hunting among the nominees, but The Sweet Hereafter should have been nominated and won.

1998: I have a window seat on the SiL Hate Train. Elizabeth among the nominees, despite having about the worst blood/violence effects in the history of modern cinema. Not a fan at all of Thin Red Line, personally.

1999: I was actually quite fond of American Beauty but would have voted for The Insider. Neither Cider House nor Green Mile should have been nominated, most especially the prior. Election should have received one. It was that good.

2000: Gladiator? No. Traffic was the best of a pretty weak lot of nominees. You Can Count On Me was probably my favorite film of the year.

2001: Beautiful Mind? Another bad choice. I enjoyed the hell out of Gosford Park, but LotR:FotR should have won. It was by far the strongest of the trilogy.

2002: Chicago won. I didn't adore any of the nominated films in what I consider to be another weak year. Lantana was probably my favorite of the year. In fairness, never saw The Hours. Among the noms, probably The Pianist.

2003: Among the noms, Mystic River probably should have won. RotK's award was an award for the trilogy, not for the specific film (which didn't deserve it). Finding Nemo deserved a nomination, honestly. My favorite of the year was The Station Agent.

2004: Million Dollar Baby won, I would have voted for Sideways. Remove the nominations for Finding Neverland and The Aviator and replace them with Eternal Sunshine and Maria Full of Grace.

2005: Crash? Another dreadful choice. Among the noms, probably Capote.

2006: Cannot disagree with The Departed among the noms. Children of Men should have been nominated.

2007: I cannot object to No Country winning, but I would have voted for Michael Clayton. Best film of the year. Gone Baby Gone deserved a nom.

2008: Slumdog was...not BP-worthy IMHO. I enjoyed it, but...yeah, no. Milk would be my choice among the noms.

2009: Cannot object too much to Hurt Locker winning. Up In the Air was actually my favorite film of the year, but probably not BP-worthy. In all fairness, still have not seen An Education.

2010: King's Speech won, undeservedly. The Social Network should have won. Have never seen The Fighter, however.

2011: A lot of undeserving noms, including The Artist, which won. Among the noms, I would have picked Moneyball. 50/50 and The Guard were my favorite films of the year.

2012: Silver Linings probably deserved the nom. Zero Dark Thirty should have won.

2013: I still have only seen a little bit of 12 Years a Slave so cannot opine too much here. Not a lot of films that I loved from this year. Before Midnight was probably my favorite. Frances Ha was also quite good, although probably not BP-worthy.

2014: Strong year, have not yet seen Selma. Cannot object too strongly to Birdman but I would have picked Grand Budapest or Whiplash. American Sniper did not deserve to be nominated.

2015: Have not yet seen Room or The Revenant, but loved both Brooklyn and The Big Short.

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

My choices for same time frame, but including films not nominated.

1990: Goodfellas
1991: The Silence of the Lambs
1992: Unforgiven
1993: Schindler's List
1994: The Shawshank Redemption
1995: Leaving Las Vegas
1996: Fargo
1997: L.A. Confidential
1998: The Thin Red Line
1999: The Straight Story
2000: Dancer In The Dark
2001: Mulholland Drive
2002: City Of God
2003: Mystic River
2004: Sideways
2005: Good Night, and Good Luck
2006: Children Of Men
2007: The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford
2008: The Wrestler
2009: An Education
2010: Blue Valentine
2011: Shame
2012: The Master
2013: Her
2014: Whiplash

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

Shakespeare in Love gets thrown out and Saving Private Ryan gets it.


The Artist doesnt get the best picture and anything else gets it

Re: If the Oscars had a do-over?
 

Future me is ready to throw pitchforks at the Academy for not even nominating the greatest performance of 2015 that of Rinko Kikuchi in Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter