Yeah, but noone would think of giving Die Hard an Oscar for best movie of the year.
Oscar Winning Movies You Despise!
- Thread starter TedShatner10
- Start date
Yeah, but noone would think of giving Die Hard an Oscar for best movie of the year.
Yeah, The Departed is an awesome film. Wahlberg's line about the feds being like mushrooms still cracks me up.
"My theory on Feds is that they're like mushrooms, feed 'em shit and keep 'em in the dark"
I also liked:
"Go fuck yourself."
"I'm tired from fucking your wife."
"How is your mother? "
"Good, she's tired from fucking my father."
I also like the fact that half the soundtrack was Dropkick Murphy's songs.
Annie Hall--I was never into Woody Allen, and glad cause I think he's way over rated and so was this film, to think this is what beat out Star Wars.
Chariots of Fire--Insipid, dull sports flick that beat out Raiders of the Lost Ark, the only saving grace for this film is that it beat the widely favored Reds, one of the dullest films I've ever seen.
The Silence of the Lambs--Very over rated, I've seen better horror films but they would never be considered by the Academy. Still think Beauty and the Beast was the better film.
Shakespeare in Love--Sappy, pretentious crap and the only reason it won is because Weinstein overmarketed this to the superior Saving Private Ryan. I remember it was the last time I watched the Oscars since I realized it was an American Idol-like popularity contest.
Gladiator--Movie sucked but so did the other nominees, IIRC it wasn't a great year for films.
A Beautiful Mind--Ron Howard at his worst, the first LOTR should've won, but the Academy was too prejudiced (still is) against genre films.
Crash--Like everyone here stated, full of cliches and preachy, I think it won because of homophobia over Brokeback Mountain.
The Departed--Surprisingly one of Scorceses' weakest films, it only won for the lifetime achievement factor and they felt they couldn't reward Eastwood so soon for Letters From Iwo Jima and Babel which can be compared to Crash but was so much better.
Chariots of Fire--Insipid, dull sports flick that beat out Raiders of the Lost Ark, the only saving grace for this film is that it beat the widely favored Reds, one of the dullest films I've ever seen.
The Silence of the Lambs--Very over rated, I've seen better horror films but they would never be considered by the Academy. Still think Beauty and the Beast was the better film.
Shakespeare in Love--Sappy, pretentious crap and the only reason it won is because Weinstein overmarketed this to the superior Saving Private Ryan. I remember it was the last time I watched the Oscars since I realized it was an American Idol-like popularity contest.
Gladiator--Movie sucked but so did the other nominees, IIRC it wasn't a great year for films.
A Beautiful Mind--Ron Howard at his worst, the first LOTR should've won, but the Academy was too prejudiced (still is) against genre films.
Crash--Like everyone here stated, full of cliches and preachy, I think it won because of homophobia over Brokeback Mountain.
The Departed--Surprisingly one of Scorceses' weakest films, it only won for the lifetime achievement factor and they felt they couldn't reward Eastwood so soon for Letters From Iwo Jima and Babel which can be compared to Crash but was so much better.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
Weren't The Departed and Gangs of New York essentially the same movie, give or take being set a 150 years apart?
Blood Diamond may have been partially the same movie, too.
Blood Diamond may have been partially the same movie, too.
Aren't all Gangster movies?
Scorsese is known on the record to despise Gangs of New York. Does that mean I can put him down for despising The Departed, too?
Seriously, though. Has everyone who is praising The Departed seen the original Infernal Affairs trilogy (or even just the first film)?
Scorsese is known on the record to despise Gangs of New York. Does that mean I can put him down for despising The Departed, too?
Seriously, though. Has everyone who is praising The Departed seen the original Infernal Affairs trilogy (or even just the first film)?
Nope. Sorry.
Obviously you haven't seen them.
I liked Crash, honestly. Although I think as an ensemble movie, I would take Traffic over it any day.
As far as bad ones go:
-Casablanca. My parents love this movie, but it bored me to death. I have seen most of the classics, and they are far more interesting than this one.
-Titanic. I agree 110% that it was just a chick flick with a huge budget and an over 3 hour run time. It was cliched, poorly written, and just not very well done outside of the visuals.
-Raging Bull. I thought it was alright, but it was certainly inferior to many of Scorsese's other films. I just never got the feeling from watching it that I was watching a GREAT film.
I wouldn't say I despise The English Patient; it's far too excruciatingly boring to waste any substantive emotion on. Over-long, over-praised and with horrible characters it's impossible to give a damn about, but I don't despise it. I simply have zero interest in wasting another several hours of my life watching it again.
I don't despise Chariots of Fire, either; it does, after all, have a magnificent soundtrack.
But whatever marvellous qualities the movie itself apparently possesses didn't appeal to me in the least. To each their own.
The fact that indescribably repulsive excuse for a song from Titanic even exists was sufficient reason for me to avoid the movie itself like the plague; I have no interest in or intention of ever watching it. I do, however, thoroughly despise the song.
I don't despise Shakespeare in Love; it's a fun movie that I enjoyed a great deal. It does represent perhaps the ultimate example of a media campaign for a movie vastly outweighing said movie's actual quality. And Gwynneth Paltrow's "win" over Cate Blanchett is right down there with the worst Oscar howlers.
There are others, but that will do for now.
I don't despise Chariots of Fire, either; it does, after all, have a magnificent soundtrack.
But whatever marvellous qualities the movie itself apparently possesses didn't appeal to me in the least. To each their own.The fact that indescribably repulsive excuse for a song from Titanic even exists was sufficient reason for me to avoid the movie itself like the plague; I have no interest in or intention of ever watching it. I do, however, thoroughly despise the song.
I don't despise Shakespeare in Love; it's a fun movie that I enjoyed a great deal. It does represent perhaps the ultimate example of a media campaign for a movie vastly outweighing said movie's actual quality. And Gwynneth Paltrow's "win" over Cate Blanchett is right down there with the worst Oscar howlers.
There are others, but that will do for now.
I'm going a little older. I didn't like Chariots of Fire or Citizen Kane. I wasn't crazy about Annie Hall.
Of course the Oscars are a popularity contest and reflect more than just the quality of the films, so I usually don't put much stock in them or care what wins. Usually the Best Picture is good in some way, even if there are better films that year. But...
Titanic seems to be a bit of a hot button, but I have to say I thought it was completely undeserving of the best picture award. The writing was on the level of a Lifetime cable movie. All the real-life drama and tragedy implicit in one of the most epic events of the 20th century was pushed to the back by a run-of-the-mill romance. The exposition in the present-day story is embarrassing. The pacing is terrible; how long did they slog around in the water below decks, an hour? They would have been incapacitated by hypothermia after a few minutes, anyway.
The film was a box-office and even a cultural phenomenon, no question. But as the hype has faded its merits have come into better perspective. If the academy voting were done now, it might well lose to LA Confidential, which has substantially higher ratings on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
I was as big a Star Wars fan as I could possibly be and from my eight year old perspective it was almost inconceivable that it did not win. But Annie Hall is a terrific movie, a great comedy that is also a clear-eyed look at romance where the guy does not always get the girl. It was also very innovative in its narrative approach and is very accomplished in its cinematic technique. I love both movies; I can't say Annie Hall didn't deserve the award.
The Greatest Show on Earth is a pretty weak winner, I've always thought. The Quiet Man and High Noon were both far superior.
Raging Bull and Citizen Kane have both been mentioned, but neither won best picture.
--Justin
Titanic seems to be a bit of a hot button, but I have to say I thought it was completely undeserving of the best picture award. The writing was on the level of a Lifetime cable movie. All the real-life drama and tragedy implicit in one of the most epic events of the 20th century was pushed to the back by a run-of-the-mill romance. The exposition in the present-day story is embarrassing. The pacing is terrible; how long did they slog around in the water below decks, an hour? They would have been incapacitated by hypothermia after a few minutes, anyway.
The film was a box-office and even a cultural phenomenon, no question. But as the hype has faded its merits have come into better perspective. If the academy voting were done now, it might well lose to LA Confidential, which has substantially higher ratings on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
I was as big a Star Wars fan as I could possibly be and from my eight year old perspective it was almost inconceivable that it did not win. But Annie Hall is a terrific movie, a great comedy that is also a clear-eyed look at romance where the guy does not always get the girl. It was also very innovative in its narrative approach and is very accomplished in its cinematic technique. I love both movies; I can't say Annie Hall didn't deserve the award.
The Greatest Show on Earth is a pretty weak winner, I've always thought. The Quiet Man and High Noon were both far superior.
Raging Bull and Citizen Kane have both been mentioned, but neither won best picture.
--Justin
The 'Return of the King' Oscar sweep was sort of the Academy awarding the entire series. I am pleased that the Academy did this but the two previous films, Fellowship and Two Towers were probably better choices for a Best Picture win. However, I like to think of all three movies as one huge film, so its all good. The only shame is the many dramatic performances, like Sean Astin's, which got ignored.
1928 (1st)Wings, Sunrise
1929 (2nd)Broadway Melody, The
1930 (3rd)All Quiet on the Western Front
1931 (4th)Grand Hotel
1932 (5th)
1933 (6th)Cavalcade
1934 (7th)It Happened One Night
1935 (8th)Mutiny on the Bounty
1936 (9th)Great Ziegfeld, The
1937 (10th)Life of Émile Zola, The
1938 (11th)You Can't Take It With You
1939 (12th)Gone with the Wind
1940 (13th)Rebecca
1941 (14th)How Green Was My Valley
1942 (15th)Mrs. Miniver
1943 (16th)Casablanca
1944 (17th)Going My Way
1945 (18t)The Lost Weekend
1946 (19th)The Best Years of Our Lives
1947 (20th)Gentleman's Agreement
1948 (21st)Hamlet (1948)
1949 (22nd)All the King's Men
1950 (23rd)All about Eve
1951 (24th)An American in Paris
1952 (25th)The Greatest Show on Earth
1953 (26th)From Here to Eternity
1954 (27th)On the Waterfront
1955 (28th)Marty
1956 (29th)Around the World in 80 Days
1957 (30th)The Bridge on the River Kwai
1958 (31st)Gigi
1959 (32nd)Ben-Hur
1960 (33rd)The Apartment
1961 (34th)West Side Story
1962 (35th)Lawrence of Arabia
1963 (36th)Tom Jones
1964 (37th)My Fair Lady
1965 (38th)The Sound of Music
1966 (39th)A Man for All Seasons
1967 (40th)In the Heat of the Night
1968 (41st)Oliver!
1969 (42nd)Midnight Cowboy
1970 (43rd)Patton
1971 (44th)The French Connection
1972 (45th)The Godfather
1973 (46th)The Sting
1974 (47th)The Godfather Part II
1975 (48th)One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
1976 (49th)Rocky
1977 (50th)Annie Hall
1978 (51st)The Deer Hunter
1979 (52nd)Kramer vs. Kramer
1980 (53rd)Ordinary People
1981 (54th)Chariots of Fire
1982 (55th)Gandhi
1983 (56th)Terms of Endearment
1984 (57th)Amadeus
1985 (58th)Out of Africa
1986 (59th)Platoon
1987 (60th)The Last Emperor
1988 (61st)Rain Man
1989 (62nd)Driving Miss Daisy
1990 (63rd)Dances With Wolves
1991 (64th)The Silence of the Lambs
1992 (65th)Unforgiven
1993 (66th)Schindler's List
1994 (67th)Forrest Gump
1995 (68th)Braveheart
1996 (69th)The English Patient
1997 (70th)Titanic
1998 (71st)Shakespeare in Love
1999 (72nd)American Beauty
2000 (73rd)Gladiator
2001 (74th)A Beautiful Mind
2002 (75th)Chicago
2003 (76th)The Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King
2004 (77th)Million Dollar Baby
2005 (78th)Crash
2006 (79th)The Departed
2007 (80th)No Country for Old Men
Perhaps^^^this will help. (Especially after I fix it!)
Looking at this list, I see lots that I don't think really stood the test of time.
But honestly, to truly despise---there's only one, champion by default---Gone with the Wind. Not since Birth of a Nation was there such an excrescence on the US cinema. And it took the Oscar away from Wizard of Oz!
Lawrence of Arabia and Patton glorify their subjects but do hint (as I recall) enough to allow the viewer dissent. Deer Hunter is saved from contempt by obscurity---it was the Dark Knight of its day, instantly forgotten when the political climate changed.
Last edited:
I must admit I've never seen Gone With the Wind. But, due to the racial elements, I've never found enough motivation within myself to sit for the whole four hours.
To the poster who mentioned they don't like Citizen Kane, two points. One, it's not only one of the most influential American films ever made, it's also one of the best. The narrative is still well-paced, engaging, and original more than sixty years later. Second, it didn't win Best Picture. Due to the controversy between Welles and William Randolph Hearst, the movie only won a single award, Best Original Screenplay, shared between Welles and Herman Mankiewicz. So it is an Oscar Winner, but only just.
To the poster who mentioned they don't like Citizen Kane, two points. One, it's not only one of the most influential American films ever made, it's also one of the best. The narrative is still well-paced, engaging, and original more than sixty years later. Second, it didn't win Best Picture. Due to the controversy between Welles and William Randolph Hearst, the movie only won a single award, Best Original Screenplay, shared between Welles and Herman Mankiewicz. So it is an Oscar Winner, but only just.
Gone With the Wind is perhaps the most overrated movie ever made (IMO, anyway). Much too long and melodramatic, with some truly awful acting and elements (such as the depiction of black characters) that have aged very badly. I'm not sure how I managed to leave it out of my earlier post.
Citizen Kane isn't far behind it in the overrated stakes, though. I don't really feel like going through my reasons for that viewpoint (it gets boring being told I'm "wrong" simply because I hold a different opinion, and it's not germane to this thread anyway).
To each their own.
Citizen Kane isn't far behind it in the overrated stakes, though. I don't really feel like going through my reasons for that viewpoint (it gets boring being told I'm "wrong" simply because I hold a different opinion, and it's not germane to this thread anyway).
To each their own.
they were running a midnight showing of gone with the wind when i was a kid. my father, lover of war films said "lets go see it . it's supposed to be a great civil war movie". well, we went, sat there quietly and saw the entire film and as the end titles came on the screen my dad summed the movie up in one concise sentence" what a piece of shit!"
No Counttry for Old Men sucks. I hated it. I hated, too,the ending, and its fans will claim I don't get it. Fuck them. I do get it, but it was crappy. The only reason the film is so heralded is because it's the Coen Brothers. If Speilberg of Fincher or Nolan had delivered the same film exactly as it is, I promise it would not be praised