Completely agree, i don't dislike it because it wasn't as good as the first two I dislike it because it sucked. It didn't have the same feel as the other movies. It was a completely different Michael Corleone from the first two, and he made those movies in my opinion, particularly part two. I don't like the plot with the vatican, and I don't like Andy Garcia or the weird incest.


Couldn't have said it better myself.


I agree with you on the fact that they may not be oscar worthy because they aren't at the same depth as other oscar films. I guess I was just trying to point out that action movies receive no love. But I don't think Schindler's List is on a completely different plane than Gladiator. I love Schindler's List but I still think Gladiator's better. Its not some pointless war movie like 300 or Troy. It has a real story not just violence and it has great characters and great acting and great directing.

Just a slight aside that's related to the topic of this thread:

1994 - There is no way that Forrest Gump should have beaten Pulp Fiction for Best Picture. That year essentially epitomized the status of the Oscar as an industry award which only occasionally rewards a film that actually deserves to be praised as a great film, IMO.

Agreed. I like Forrest Gump. I find it a very enjoyable movie. But the fact that people think it's a great film puzzles me. I mean, it's a clever special-effects heavy nostalgic romp through American history. Much like Back to the Future. But why is Back to the Future treated (appropriately) as an endearingly clever, well-made film while Forrest Gump is treated like a great piece of cinema?



God it kills me to disagree with you here Meatloaf after you went through a bunch of things I said and agreed with all of them, but you gotta be kidding me. Even if I thought Gladiator was a great, great action film and didn't have problems with its inconsistent characters (*cough* Quintus *cough*), embarrassing mishmash of history, and general lack of plot after the first 40 minutes, there's no way it's on the level with Schindler's List. I mean, Spielberg's film has that one misstep at the end where he goes just a little bit too far towards audience manipulation, but it aims so much higher than Gladiator and reaches heights that Scott's film doesn't know existed.

I see your point, and Schindler's List is a masterpiece, and in my top 100, but I simply like Gladiator more. O Quitnus.

Meatloaf: there's a MASSIVE difference between what movie you "like better" and what movie is better. If you want to like Gladiator more, good for you. I totally understand. My favorite film ever is Zulu. That means I like Zulu more than Schindler's List, right? But I surely don't think Zulu is a better film. What I took issue with initially is that you said Gladiator was better, rather than you liked it more. Glad we cleared that shit up

The two biggest mistakes the Academy has made in recent memory:

2007 - Not nominating "Gone Baby Gone" and "Into the Wild" for Best Picture, instead opting for "Juno" and "There Will Be Blood" (a vastly overrated film). Also, how Amy Ryan didn't win Best Supporting Actress for her turn in "Gone Baby Gone" is beyond me.

2008 - Not nominating "The Dark Knight" for Best Picture (it was the best movie from last year) and not nominating Christopher Nolan for Best Director. Two horrid crimes.

As far as the hate for "Gladiator", I actually think that's one of the better films of this decade, two extraordinary performances and I thought the way they created the Colosseum was pretty amazing, but that's just me.

2007- I will totally agree with Gone Baby Gone. That cracked my "best" list at the end of the year. A movie in which the characters act on moral principles and their beliefs rather than on the whim of a screenwriter. And a final question at the end of "what does doing the right thing even mean" that the movie steadfastly refuses to give an answer for. I've thought a hell of a lot more about that film than I have No Country For Old Men or Juno, two movies that I liked.

2008- I think that Christopher Nolan should have gotten a Best Director nod for The Dark Knight (especially over Stephen friggin Daldry) but I don't think it was one of the year's best by any means. Even if we leave aside the fact that it was overlong and fell apart in the third act, it wasn't about anything. The best films are ones of depth, like Gone Baby Gone, that become more than just entertainment. So while Titanic was an incredible experience in theaters (no matter how much people hate on that film, it was a *spectacle*) it wasn't deep at all. L.A. Confidential on the other hand, was. But of course, the Reader has "themes" and was a worse movie than The Dark Knight. So what do I know?

What's the difference?

Are you kidding? You have to make a distinction between what you like and what's objectively meritorious. I happen to love a lot of shitty movies, as do many of us. The 1988 version of the Blob is pretty cruddy but I very much enjoy it. And even among not crappy movies, I "like" Forgetting Sarah Marshall more than Stroszek. I own the first one, not the latter. I've watched FSM around 10 times, and Stroszek once. If you asked me "Hey James, which do you want to see tonight?" I really don't think I would EVER pick Herzog's film. But it's a far better film.

Letters From Iwo Jima - I thought it was a good looking movie but very boring. I actually liked Flags of Our Fathers more.

Gosford Park - It was just okay IMO.

Four Weddings and a Funeral - meh


As far as weak winners I'd say:

No Country for Old Men
Million Dollar Baby
Shakespeare in Love

All good movies but not great IMO.

What would you have picked in each year (of the 5 nominees)?

2007 - There Will Be Blood (I thought Juno and Atonement were better as well)

2004 - The Aviator (Sideways, Finding Neverland and heck, even Ray were also better IMO)

1998 - Saving Private Ryan (The Thin Red Line was also MUCH more deserving, ditto for Elizabeth)

2007 - There Will Be Blood (I thought Juno and Atonement were better as well)

2004 - The Aviator (Sideways, Finding Neverland and heck, even Ray were also better IMO)

1998 - Saving Private Ryan (The Thin Red Line was also MUCH more deserving, ditto for Elizabeth)[/quote]

I agree with you completely on 2007, and can understand Thin Red Line love even if the movie felt rambling and severely overlong to me, but I can't abide your love of formulaic biopics. The Aviator and (especially) Ray are about as mundane as stupid, awards-bait movies get to me. Boring films. Not in the sense that they're dull, but that they don't aspire to anything. I guess I'm being a little harsh on The Aviator, but Ray? REALLY?

Oh I don' think your being the least bit harsh, I was forced to watch of those films in high school and I didn't like either one, but at least Ray had an outstanding performance by Jamie Foxx, The Aviator was just bland in every single aspect and it just seemed to dragged on and on, I pretty much fell asleep near the end of it and I hardly felt like I missed much.

Ray isn't a great movie but I still liked it better than the overrated Million Dollar Baby which is nothing more than a combination of a cliched sports movie mixed with a lifetime movie of the week type movie.

The Aviator I will defend till the day I die. I love it, I adore it. One of my absolute favorite Martin Scorsese movies. It's brilliant. It's compulsively watchable. It's completely compelling. Featuring some breathtaking moments and an amazing performance by Leonardo Dicaprio, the best he's ever given. Of all the Dicaprio/Scorsese pairings, this one is my favorite.

Million Dollar Baby is also immensely overrated and I also had to watch that one in high school, i've never been very fond of Hilary Swank and didn't see how she was deserving of an Oscar in any way, and Eastwood gives one of his least inspired performances as it just feels like he's going through the motions for the whole film, and the ending didn't make me feel any emotion whatsoever, it just made me yawn.

I normally don't agree with you, Vexer, but you hit a nail on the head with Hilary Swank. I just don't see why she won an Oscar here; maybe in Boys Don't Cry, but MDB? Nah.

I'm a sucker for any movie that seems like it's following a traditional path and then suddenly changes into something completely unexpected. They're sometimes known as gearshift movies (Psycho is probably the best example, as it starts out as a straightforward thriller and then turns into a horror film 40 minutes in) and Million Dollar Baby is certainly one of them. Of course that doesn't make a good movie necessarily, but the way it went from formulaic sports movie (as has been said here) to something far deeper impressed me a great deal. It's not one of the most worthy Best Picture winners perhaps, but I think it's a very compelling film.

I'm going to jump on the bat and say TDK should have been nominated for Best Picture and Director. I still think it was the best film from last year.

From 2007, Atonement was my favorite film of the year (I love that film), but I wasn't offended that No Country won because I liked it alot too. Sweeney Todd should have been nominated over Juno or There Will be Blood, imo.

I was really excited to see The Dark Knight, but walking out I was far less impressed than I had hoped to be. I mean...didn't anyone else notice the third act kinda, you know, sucked?