1. Life is Beautiful to Shakespeare in Love (1998) 2. Quiz Show to Forrest Gump (1994) 3. Traffic to Gladiator (2000) 4. Raiders of the Lost Ark to Chariots of Fire (1981) 5. Dead Poets Society to Driving Miss Daisy (1989) 6. A Few Good Men to Unforgiven (1992) 7. 12 Angry Men to The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)-latter good, former great 8. Munich to Crash (2005) 9. The Two Towers to Chicago (2002) 10. The Exorcist to The Sting (1973)
As much as I love the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I think that Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World was robbed in 2003. Return of the King was, in its theatrical version, a comparatively weak film. M&C is far more consistent overall. If an LOTR film deserved Best Picture, it was Fellowship in 2001.
Bingo! Again, complete agreement, especially for Blanchett. I am pretty much of the same mind on this, especially with the award to Densch. Another I might add is Henry Fonda's for "On Golden Pond". Good film, good performance... but it was clear to me the Best Actor Oscar was awarded to him because the Academy felt he was not long for this world. Another was Paul Newman's for "The Color of Money", when he should have won for "The Verdict", "Cool Hnad Luke" and/or "The Hustler". I am convinced ROTK won all of those Oscars in recognition for all three individual films. IF you separate the films into three movies - which is logical and understandable - then I can agree that the theatrical FOTR is the best of the three. BUT... I cannot separate them. To me they are one single movie, and were recognized as such primarily because they were filmed pretty much at the same time. Just released over time. To see it go without the awards if received would be criminal at best.
I believe the big reason that the first two LOTR films didn't win was because the Academy was worried that the subsequent installments would fall flat on their faces and retroactively make the award look bad. Since they knew they would have the option of giving the third film BP, it was an easy choice to pass on it for the time being.
I'm personally a huge fan of Paltrow's performance in that movie, so I don't have a problem with her winning.
I am pretty much of the same mind on this, especially with the award to Densch. Another I might add is Henry Fonda's for "On Golden Pond". Good film, good performance... but it was clear to me the Best Actor Oscar was awarded to him because the Academy felt he was not long for this world. Another was Paul Newman's for "The Color of Money", when he should have won for "The Verdict", "Cool Hnad Luke" and/or "The Hustler". QUOTE] One infamous consolation award that I've read about was Elizabeth Taylor winning Best Actress for Butterfield 8 a performance that has been reviled but she won supposedly because she nearly died around the time of the nomination/award ceremony.
I agree Kane was groundbreaking. How Green Was My Valley had conventional cinematography but it was done very, very well, so its easy to see why it would get votes from people not used to a new style.
One pattern that I'm seeing with the winners is that the Academy tends to give awards to movies, performances, etc. that are safe and conventional. Take How Green Was My Valley's win for picture and cinematography. Or more recently Forrest Gump and Dances With Wolves over the more edgy Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas. But there are exceptions like Midnight Cowboy, the only X rated film to win for best picture (though by today's standards the film would be an R)
One factor in that is success; the Academy likes films that are big hits. A strong, conventional film that makes lots of money will get a very warm reception (in recent years, there's been a slackening of the correlation between box office and success, most pronouncedly last year).
Agreed, a great film whose sophistication is often lost amid the perception that it's just a sentimental tear-jerker. Its narrator's idealized nostalgia, told through subjective, sometimes expressionistic shots, is balanced by a remarkable editorial distance in the depiction of the tragic and unhappy side of events. It doesn't have the technical innovation of Citizen Kane, which is so much more appealing to modern tastes, but it is hardly an injustice that such a fine film won the Oscar that year. And Orson Welles is certainly on record as a big fan of John Ford's mastery of cinematic storytelling. And/or Hud. --Justin
That reminds me, another site had a great joke when Ruby Dee was nominated for "American Gangster" a few years back. It's the "Oh shit, you're dying soon!" nomination! She was all right, but she was hardly even in the movie!
Would it be possible for folks to list what criteria they use in judging what film is worthy of winning the Best Picture Oscar? Seriously... what makes you say, "that's my winner right there"? Historical? Big box office take? Strong moral message that you favor?
I'm serious though. What for you makes it a "really, really good movie"? Just from looking in this thread, different people have variety of criteria. Or is this something that can even be quantified at all?
#6 was a toss-up (were there really no more serious movies that year?) and #9 was the right call. Oh yeah, that could have been the worst choice of all time. And no, it's not a "preference thing" at all.
But precisely why do you feel that way? Why is it such a bad choice, but not because of personal preferences?
If you're interested in a debate about the concept of quality, it has been going on for centuries and is not easy to sum up in a couple of forum posts. Start with Plato.
You misunderstand me. It's not so much a debate over "quality" I'm interested in, but what specific factors move a person to rate a film one way or the other. On top of that, there are many folks who know a great deal more what to look for in evaluating a film, things I'm not aware of.
Rocky isn't as sophisticated or as deep as Taxi Driver. But that doesn't mean it's not as good. I think it's a worthy winner. If Taxi Driver had won, I wouldn't be complaining either. Both movies are superb.