Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:50 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 213 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture' 
Author Message
Post Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
We often moan how the Academy got it wrong. This film was much better than that one and so on. I want to know with which movie they got it most wrong.

Simply give me the one Best Picture winner that you feel was the least deserved. No lists, no ties. If this catches on, I'll keep a tally so that the majority pick will forever dwell in the Reelviews Chamber of Shame†

A short description of why you dislike the movie as well as suggesting a more worthy winner is preferred, but not necessary.

You might find this list of Best Picture winners (and nominees) helpful in deciding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture


unfortunately a fictional place


Mon May 03, 2010 2:36 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Ugh you limit me to ONE? There are so many choices, even for a staunch defender of the academy.

If I must choose a single worst, it'll be Chicago. Because while Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan was bad, and Gladiator over Traffic was worse, I still find there to be merit in both of those winners. On the other hand, Chicago is a bad film. Self-indulgent, prestigey, dumb, and overlong. And it beat out The Pianist, which is masterful, and Gangs of New York, which is flawed but often brilliant.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon May 03, 2010 3:15 pm
Profile
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Titanic, I could definitely understand it winning for best special effects, but best picture? No way in hell did it deserve that! Di Caprio and Winslet have to be one of the single LEAST convincing onscreen couples in movie history IMO, and of course that made it impossible for me to give a rat's ass about either of they're characters, when
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Jack drowned
I just yawned and rolled my eyes. Also, The final scene in that film is one of the single most emotionally and shamelessly manipulative moments in motion picture history, I had the complete opposite reaction to it that Cameron intended people, it just made me gag, and that horrible Celine Dion song only made that scene even worse. Even the top-notch specila effects couldn't save that cinematic abomination of a film. I actually prefer Terms Of Endearment, which was also highly manipulative, but since I actually cared about the characters in that film to a certain extent, it didn't bother me all that much. Chicago was also a pretty lousy film, but I don't have the burning hatred for it that I do for Titanic, I jsut found Chicago to be extremely dull and forgettable. Gladiator was also bad, and I resent that film for paving the way for even more bad overblown historical epics like Alexander, Troy, Four Feathers and Kingdom Of Heaven. I never saw Shakespeare In Love and never intend to do so, and also while I wouldn't say it's bad, I found THe Departed to be immensely overrated.


Mon May 03, 2010 3:31 pm
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
I am going to have to go with Driving Miss Daisy. One should note I probably have seen less than 10% of best picture winner before 1965.


Mon May 03, 2010 3:39 pm
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
I don't think anyone should pick How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane. There are reasons why it won.

I'm going to pick Driving Miss Daisy over Born on the Fourth of July. While it may not seem like the worst, the former did not even have a Best Director nominee. There is nothing outstanding about this film at all. There are at least a few outstanding things about Born on the Fourth of July.


Mon May 03, 2010 3:40 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
I've seen 4 of the BP nominees from 1989 and didn't give one of them even 3 stars. That's why I didn't get worked up over Driving Miss Daisy, even though I agree that it's terrible

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon May 03, 2010 3:54 pm
Profile
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
I go with Forrest Gump, simply because it beat what was a far superior film (and one that will be remember long after): Pulp Fiction. Yes, the Oscars have awarded the Best Film award before to films that were not in fact the best in previous years, but this travesty represented that trend at its very worst. It also represented how little the Oscars could be about crediting artistic superiority.


Mon May 03, 2010 4:35 pm
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Around the World in 80 Days was just an ensemble goofball adventure, nothing special aside from the great cost and shooting locations. It's a lark, not an important movie. Hollywood celebrates itself enough, has always celebrated itself, and this one celebrates Hollywood to toxic levels. Hateful whimsy.


Last edited by majoraphasia on Mon May 03, 2010 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon May 03, 2010 4:43 pm
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Are we doing worst movie in terms of quality or worst movie in terms of how egregious the error is in it winning? 2 different things, I just wanna know which one to go with.

For instance, Forrest Gump beating Pulp Fiction is my pick for most egregious error because of how great/influential Tarantino's film is. That said, I'd hardly call Forrest Gump the worst movie to win Best Picture. Chicago, Crash, and Titanic were all much, much worse movies.


Mon May 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
PeachyPete wrote:
Are we doing worst movie in terms of quality or worst movie in terms of how egregious the error is in it winning? 2 different things, I just wanna know which one to go with.

For instance, Forrest Gump beating Pulp Fiction is my pick for most egregious error because of how great/influential Tarantino's film is. That said, I'd hardly call Forrest Gump the worst movie to win Best Picture. Chicago, Crash, and Titanic were all much, much worse movies.

I think Ed's original post was referring to years when the Academy got it the MOST wrong, so I'm sticking with Forrest Gump. The Academy picked a Roger Zemeckis film over one of the most influential films in the history of cinema. To say that they f---ed it up is the understatement of the century, IMO.


Mon May 03, 2010 4:50 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Ragnarok73 wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
Are we doing worst movie in terms of quality or worst movie in terms of how egregious the error is in it winning? 2 different things, I just wanna know which one to go with.

For instance, Forrest Gump beating Pulp Fiction is my pick for most egregious error because of how great/influential Tarantino's film is. That said, I'd hardly call Forrest Gump the worst movie to win Best Picture. Chicago, Crash, and Titanic were all much, much worse movies.

I think Ed's original post was referring to years when the Academy got it the MOST wrong, so I'm sticking with Forrest Gump. The Academy picked a Roger Zemeckis film over one of the most influential films in the history of cinema. To say that they f---ed it up is the understatement of the century, IMO.


Yeah it would be like picking Back to the Future as Best Picture. Though sadly Back to the Future was almost certainly better than Out of Africa, which won in 1985

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon May 03, 2010 4:56 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1443
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Not sure if anyone should offer an opinion on what films 'should have won' unless they actually followed the Oscars at the time they were held. I mean any one of us saying How Green Was My Valley should not have won the Best Picture of 1941 seems sort of absurd, no? How could we possibly know how it was received at the time? Yeah, time has proven to some degree which films are 'great' & which are not, but unfortunately the Oscars can't see into the future so maybe we should cut them some slack. Just watching many of these older titles in 2010 & saying 'how did that win?' seems a bit unfair. I mean who knows how film fans 20 years from now will view The Departed, etc...

Since I've been following the Oscars(1986), the worst decision IMO has been Crash winning. Not saying I agreed with all the other winners in that span, but at least I understood why they won, but this one was pretty baffling on all levels.

Quote:
The Academy picked a Roger Zemeckis film over one of the most influential films in the history of cinema


And how could they have known how influential Pulp would become at the time? Gump had a ton of critical support at the time plus huge box office, it winning wasn't surprising at all.


Mon May 03, 2010 5:16 pm
Profile
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Midnight Cowboy is a poorly directed mess, held together entirely by its two titanic lead performances.

Rocky deserved to lose and lose hard to Taxi Driver.

Ordinary People similarly deserved to lose and lose hard to Raging Bull.

Silence of the Lambs is a good film, but too flawed to really merit being recognized over Beauty and the Beast. And Barton Fink should have at least been nominated. (If it had, I would be complaining that it didn't win.)

As has been mentioned, Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction is some nonsense.

Candidly, I never did get around to seeing the English Patient, but I'm guessing it's not as good as Fargo.

American Beauty is an obvious and two-dimensional dorkfest, but it's not exactly up against stiff competition. I probably would have preferred The Insider this year.

My comments about American Beauty also apply for A Beautiful Mind, but again, not exactly stiff competition.

I would have given the award for Best Picture to Lost In Translation in 2003. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a decent cinematic treatment of the fantasy genre, but I don't find them to be legitimately excellent movies. And the awards for Return of the King were, in spirit, awards for the whole shebang.

I thought The Aviator and Sideways were both better than Million Dollar Baby... which was still good. I suppose I'd have picked The Aviator.

I haven't actually seen more than select, individual scenes from Crash, but I have absolutely no wish to see the rest of it. All of its Best Picture competitors were superior.

And then there was the Hurt Locker sweep, which should have been a sweep for Inglourious Basterds.


And what do we learn from all this? That Tarantino and Scorsese might as well skip the show and stay home? Let's go with that.



If the main criterion for this thread is which film won most undeservingly, it's clearly Rocky, though I don't know if I'd call it the worst Best Picture winner on its own merits.


Mon May 03, 2010 5:29 pm
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Forrest Gump beating Pulp Fiction? Don't you mean Forrest Gump beating The Shawshank Redemption....

I loathe Crash, but it didn't beat any outstanding contenders.


Mon May 03, 2010 5:35 pm
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Crash was also undeserving(can't comment on Brokeback Mountain as I never saw it and likely never will)as the message aoubt racism was about as subtle as a jackhammer to the skull and irritated me, and the acting was all around lousy, how that film won anything other then a razzie is beyond me


Mon May 03, 2010 5:48 pm
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
calvero wrote:
Quote:
The Academy picked a Roger Zemeckis film over one of the most influential films in the history of cinema


And how could they have known how influential Pulp would become at the time? Gump had a ton of critical support at the time plus huge box office, it winning wasn't surprising at all.

The Academy could have known given that Pulp Fiction had already blitzed away competition at the Cannes Film Festival for the Palme D'Or and had already blazed its way through box offices worldwide, not to mention all of the praises that were being sung of the film. The old fogies on the Academy voting board had their collective heads jammed up their asses that year.


Mon May 03, 2010 8:29 pm
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Zedferret wrote:
Forrest Gump beating Pulp Fiction? Don't you mean Forrest Gump beating The Shawshank Redemption....

No, I mean Forrest Gump beating Pulp Fiction. I liked The Shawshank Redemption, but that film also isn't on the same level as Pulp Fiction particularly in terms of its cultural impact in the years following its release.


Mon May 03, 2010 8:32 pm
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
My vote goes to the year 1976, where Rocky beat out the likes of All The President's Men, Network, and Taxi Driver!!! :shock:

I mean, Rocky isn't a bad film by any means, but it doesn't hold a candle to those others.


Mon May 03, 2010 8:45 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7279
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
Blonde Almond wrote:
My vote goes to the year 1976, where Rocky beat out the likes of All The President's Men, Network, and Taxi Driver!!! :shock:

I mean, Rocky isn't a bad film by any means, but it doesn't hold a candle to those others.


I was wondering when 1976 would come up. While I actually think Rocky is a better film than AtPM, I agree that it wasn't in the top 2 of the nominated class

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Mon May 03, 2010 8:54 pm
Profile
Post Re: Oscars: Worst 'Best Picture'
How about Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan in 1998?

Or Chicago over Gangs of New York and LOTR: The Two Towers. My love for LOTR aside, Gangs of New York easily should have beat Chicago.

Crash over Capote and Munich? Lame.


Mon May 03, 2010 9:39 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 213 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr