Have you ever seen the movie How Green Was My Valley? Me neither.
Have you even heard of the movie? Didn’t think so.
Yet John Ford’s film somehow won 5 Oscars including Best Picture. But what’s more shocking: It beat out such classic films as Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon for the top honor. (Note: I’m not saying that Ford’s film is a bad movie. I’m just saying that in terms of reviews, user ratings, and all time-top 10 lists, it’s not to the level of Kane and Falcon)
How can that be? As it turns out there are a lot of movies that should have won Best Picture but somehow didn’t. Some of them weren’t even nominated!
Let’s take a look at the list.
Mystic River (2003)
Clint Eastwood’s Boston murder mystery was highly acclaimed by both critics and moviegoers. It was arguably better than Return of the King. But often the current work or role of an actor is unrightfuly commemorated by the Academy instead for his career or past parts. This is a perfect example. King won for its proceeding films, and not on its own merit. Another example of this would be Judi Dench’s 1999 win for her relatively brief appearance in Shakespeare in Love.
Gangs of New York (2002)
Martin Scorsese’s epic tale of 19th century New York City’s five points district was far more interesting than Rob Marshall’s Chicago. It had a better story, better cinematography, better acting (compare Daniel Day-Lewis to Catherine Zeta-Jones or Richard Gere, I dare you). Marshall’s movie was good, but I felt it was more of a filmed musical stage performance, than a visual cinematic masterpiece (Moulin Rouge! would be a good modern example of a musical that transends stage).
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Ridley Scott’s Gladiator is highly overrated and inconsistent at best. Most felt that even Traffic was a better film that year. But unnoticed at that year’s ceremony is one of the best independent films of all time - Darren Aronofsky’s Requiem for a Dream. Ellen Burstyn was nominated for Best Actress, but was robbed by a usual performance from Julia Roberts. How could this have happened?
American Beauty (1999)
Okay, I know, I KNOW - American Beauty won Best Picture that year. It was the best film - I AGREE. But how were David Fincher’s Fight Club and Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia not awarded nominations? Beauty and the Beast was strong enough to get a best picture nomination in 1991, yet Toy Story 2 didn’t win a single statuette? It’s the best reviewed movie of all time according to Rotten Tomatoes! How could the forget to award such an animated masterpiece?
Good Will Hunting (1997)
How did Titanic win Best Picture? Does anyone know? I have yet to meet someone who truely loved this movie. Hunting is currently rated almost a full ratings point higher than James Cameron’s romanic action drama on imdb. Not only was it better received by moviegoers, but also by critics. Rotten Tomatoes currently rates Titanic at 82%, while Good Will Hunting is near perfect at 96% fresh.
Pulp Fiction (1994)
1994 was a fantastic year for movies. Forrest Gump could have won on any other year, and I would have been happy. But how the hell did it beat Pulp Fiction, Quiz Show and The Shawshank Redemption?
Goodfellas (1990)
A film that is considered one of the 20 best films of all time (on imdb and almost every other list I’ve ever seen) lost to Kevin Costner’s directorial debut, Dances With Wolves. A film which I might add, isn’t in the list of the top 200 films ever made (again, on imdb or any other list). When it comes to the Academy, Martin Scorsese has been screwed more times than a hooker. And can someone explain to me how The Godfather Part III earned a nomination?
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi reigned supreme, and for good reason - but Steven Spielberg’s film deserved the honor. But it wasn’t as dramatic, so it lost.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Chariots of Fire won four Oscars that year, the same amount as Indy’s first adventure. It’s a good movie, but not great. The forgettable Louis Malle film Atlantic City and broadway adaptation On Golden Pond both earned nominations that year. Were they better films? But at least Raiders was nominated for best picture…
Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Empire received two nods and one technical win but no nomination. How was Empire ignored? A couple years earlier, George Lucas’ Star Wars: A New Hope earned a nomination for Best Picture. Was Empire not as good?
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Kramer vs. who?
Jaws (1975)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is an brilliant film, but Jaws is better. Call me a Spielberg fanboy or whatever you want, you know I’m right.
Mean Streets (1973)
Not only did Martin Scorsese’s first major film lose out to The Sting, it wasn’t even nominated. But don’t worry, George Lucas’ classic American Graffiti earned a nomination instead. But fear not, the Academy will eventually award Scorsese for a lesser-film. That’s the way they do it.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Stanley Kubrick’s science-fiction masterpiece lost to Oliver! 2001 is considered one of the most influential science fiction movies of all time. It was certainly better than that crappy musical adaptation of Oliver Twist.
North by Northwest (1959)
Ben-Hur cleared house that year. Alfred Hitchcock’s classic was no where in sight. Nominated for Art Direction, Film Editing and Writing, it left with no statuettes. (imdb: #25 of all time, 100% on RT)
The Third Man (1949)
How did All The King’s Men beat one of the best movies of all time (#45 on imdb, 100% fresh on rotten tomatoes).
Citizen Kane (1941)
I was never a huge fan of Welles’ masterpiece, but as a film journalist I see its place in filmmaking history. It is known to most as the greatest movie of all time. It’s possibly most innovative cinematic work in the history of film. If anything, it at least deserved to win Best Picture. The Maltese Falcon, starring Humphrey Bogart, was also passed over for that year’s Oscar.
City Lights (1931)
Considered Charlie Chaplin’s greatest film, the movie wasn’t even nominated for a technical award. Orson Welles has said this is his favorite movie of all time. Stanley Kubrick said City Lights was his fifth favorite movie. Federico Fellini and Woody Allen have both praised and referenced the film in their work.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Where’s Blade Runner?? :P
And Starship Troopers should’ve won Best Visual Effects in 1997 over that Titanic crap. That Titanic sweep killed lots of good films for no good reason!
February 20th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I agree with most of these, except I would’ve said Lost in Translation instead of Mystic River as the movie that should’ve beaten Return of the King.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
If you did not see “How Green Was My Valley”, how do you know it did not deserve the Oscar?
February 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
What about Blade Runner? Best Philip K Dick movie, and some damn fine acting by Harrison!
February 20th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Empire didn’t win because Lucas was not a member of the DGA. Something about not putting the credits at the beginning of the movie, since it was required back then (I don’t know about now). Also, Lucas had to pay to protect Kurshner (SP?) from the DGA swiping him away.
Same reason Spielberg couldn’t direct Return of the Jedi like Lucas wanted, because of the DGA factor.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I gave it to E.T. instead of Blade Runner. But you’re right, Blade Runner at least deserved to be nominated.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
You’ve never seen “How Green Was My Valley” and you call yourself a film journalist?
Your list seems to say that popularity = notability. Didn’t Orson Wells himself name John Ford when asked who he though was the best director out there?
Get over yourself
February 20th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
And choosing Gangs of New York over Return of the King is the complete opposite of your point. Are movies like Requiem for a Dream and City Lights really considered popular? I didn’t think so…
February 20th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
where’s malcom X, loser to friggin’ Dances with Wolves?!?
February 20th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
What you are point out is that the Oscars are more about politics and ticket sales than artisitc merit. Big deal, any serious movie lover could have told you that years ago.
I disagree with you on 2 points:
1. The fact that you haven’t heard of or seen a particular movie doesn’t make it bad, it just points up tour ignorance. FYI I *have* seen “How Green was my Valley” and I think it is a far superior film to both “Maltese Falcon” and “Citizen Kane” put together. You might consider watching it before making such sweeping statements.
2. Only Americans consider “Citizen Kane” to be the best film ever. I’m willing to bet that you have seen neither “La Dolce Vita” nor “8 1/2″, both infinitely superior to “Citizen Kane”. I can give you a list of at least 10 films that are better than “Citizen Kane”, but you’ve probably never heard of any of them.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Your argument, insofar as you have one, is cruelly marred by a lack of basic information or insight, not to mention clumsy editing and poor writing.
I can’t believe you’re leading off by confessing never to have seen, nor even heard of John Ford’s How Green Was My Valley. That pretty much invalidates anything you have to say afterwards: it shows you’re not a very thoughtful student of Hollywood history.
While Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon fit better with contemporary taste, it’s not difficult to see that the first was too experimental and the second too sexual and amoral to win as Best Picture.
In general, you seem to be confusing winning the Best Picture Oscar with actually being the best picture of the year.
Oscars are given by an industry organization essentially to promote an image of themselves as serious, responsible, yet popular artists (with a decidedly lower-case ‘a’). Most of its major awards can be accounted for in these terms.
Instead, you substitute your own arbitrary, unexamined and varying criteria for ‘greatness’ for any reasoned set of arguments.
Why exactly is Jaws “better” than Cuckoo’s Nest, which you call “an brilliant film”?
Your liking a certain film and feeling slighted because it didn’t win a particular award tells us very little about movies or the institutions which make, circulate and promote them.
Finally, don’t cite IMDB as some great authority on what is or isn’t a great film. It’s a friggin’ web site made to sell advertising. It has no editors, no editorial board, it’s not fact checked, and it’s not an authority on anything.
–E. R. O’Neill
February 20th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Ed, my list was mainly to spotlight films made after 1960. I’m not a film historian, and don’t claim to be. the main point of mentioning Ford’s film is to point out the exclusion of Citizen Kane and MF.
I don’t understand your point? Best Picture is supossed to be the best movie of the year. And as for the list being my own opinion, yes, thats the point of a list. I’m glad you picked up on that one.
IMDb is the best source of public movie opinion we have. Some movies have hundreds of thousands of votes. While box office only shows how many people were sold by the advertising, IMDb is the best resource to learn what the average person thought on a film. No fact checking needed on user ratings (although I do agree they need more editorial staff on the facts, but even you will agree that’s a totally different argument).
February 21st, 2007 at 3:18 am
As mentioned before .. popularity does not increase the literary value of a film. The vast majority of the public are not students of film, hence judge the value of a film purely on its effect on his/herself. The Academy that does the voting for the Oscars are made up of people who can be considered “experts”. Your opinion, or mine for that matter, is of lesser value.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:51 am
The reason I gave Rotten Tomatoes numbers in addition to the IMDb was to show you that the critics and public actually agreed on my points. The Academy’s opinion is of lesser value than a critic because they make their decisions mostly out of politics, and not the critical eye. This is well documented.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:15 am
I can’t blame you for the many omissions that deserved to be noted, I suppose you can’t list them all, although I do feel ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ should have been included for all the reasons it merited, not the least of which was a performance by Mia Farrow that was nothing short of brilliant.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:26 am
This article is totally opinionated. It never should have appeared on Digg. Shut the hell up, hippies.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:49 am
You forgot Tombstone, and Val Kilmer for that matter.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:49 am
American Beauty was NOT the best film of the year. Boys Don’t Cry was and I’m still pissed it got snubbed. Other than that, fun little list you put together.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:11 pm
My two cents on 1997 is that L.A. Confidential should have won and, using your argument,
L.A. Confidential has a rating of 8.4 as opposed to the 7.9 rating of Good Will Hunting at
IMDb. And, L.A. Confidential is 98% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes. With that said, however,
either film is more deserving than Titanic.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 am
way off base on mystic river; that movie was good, but it wasn’t that good. It just oozed “I want to win an oscar so badly” from every one of it’s pores. Oh, and IMDB’s rating is complete crap anyway.
1. it’s skewed towards the modern.
2. it’s skewed towards militant followings.
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Empire Strikes Back didn’t win or shouldn’t have won because it was also up Ragiaing Bull.
Check out my list on movies that are more remembered than the Best Picture.
http://mctimages.typepad.com/mct_images/2007/02/topten_pictures.html
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Peter,
You’re looking at film history. You’re not a film historian, because a historian isn’t interest in saying this film (or book or what have you) was “really” better than that one.
That is a remarkably ahistorical activity, because you’re basically saying, ‘Those poor fools the Academy voters, they were not as clever as I. I know which film is better, and they failed to figure it out.’ But why would Academy voters fail to be as clever as you? And where do you get off in treating them this way?
You are not at all grasping what I’m saying.
First, when we say ‘X is better than Y’ we’re usually responsible for explaining our criteria.
WHY is X better than Y? According to what set of criteria–and why are THOSE the criteria to apply in this case.
You’re just giving an ad hoc series of opinions without the slightest attempt to explain your reasoning process.
At that level, it’s like: I think toaster waffles are better than Pop Tarts. (If I say my criteria are moistness and fresh fruity taste, then we can get somewhere.) But you’re not debating or arguing. You’re merely offering an opinion. What is its value? We all have pet films that were slighted in one way or another–as many of these posts indicate.
The other way in which you’re barking up the wrong tree is: you refuse to accept, understand or even think about what the Academy award is. It’s not a measure of the most popular film. It’s one particular institution choosing a film to say something about itself.
Other institutions give out awards: critics’ organizations, journalists’ organizations, magazines, etc.
They all have their purposes, stated and not.
You understanding why an Oscar choice from some year differs from your own opinion might begin with you actually choosing to understand how that Oscar choice came to be.
The Oscar winner each year isn’t the “best” according to your criteria or mine. Nor is it the “most popular”–whatever that might mean. The Oscar winner is the Oscar winner. That’s it.
Finally, why look to imdb for a sense of what is popular. Wouldn’t box office indicate them–adjusted for inflation, say? There are plenty of charts like that on the internet.
What is this mythical opinion of the “average person” you seek?
If you just want to talk about unjustly overlooked films, well you kind of have a point. But weren’t other films that weren’t even nominated even more overlooked?
And again, your comments would have much more force if you said something much more precise–like that films of a certain political stripe tend to be overlooked.
Those are my complaints.
–E. R. O’Neill
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
ER,
>That is a remarkably ahistorical activity, because you’re basically saying, ‘Those poor fools the Academy voters, they were not as clever as I. I know which film is better, and they failed to figure it out.’ But why would Academy voters fail to be as clever as you? And where do you get off in treating them this way?
First it’s obvious that hindsight is something I am blessed with, and they are not (which is evident by the “Rosebud!” Academy Awards advertisement I walk past each day downtown). It’s easy for me to criticise their choices because I know which films became classics, and were not just the flavor of the year. (A film like Brokeback Mountain for example is an easy mark however, because it was chosen for the reason you wrote: “to say something about their institution” and not because it was the best picture of the year. 50 Years from now it will be a historical footnote, not not much else).
>WHY is X better than Y? According to what set of criteria–and why are THOSE the criteria to apply in this case.
Opinion is like a joke, it’s all in the eye of the beholder. You can’t explain comedy, and I can’t convince you why one movie is better than another. I agree I should have added more explanation, but understand that this article started out as a simple top ten list. A normal editorial blog post on a normal day. As a professional blogger (a term I use because this is my sole job) I make 10 postings a day. This blog post got picked up by digg, fark, and all sorts of other sources. I didn’t plan for it to have such wide distribution. If I knew, there is so much more time I would have invested in this piece. But when I realized I had spent a good two hours after gathering data and images, I had to let go and move on. I try to create interesting content to the best of my ability in the time allotted. You can call that an excuse, but it’s just the truth. You must also know that I strive to create conflict with my readers and engage in conversation. Some of my choices were made in that effort (not that I would disagree with them personally, but I was trying to write an opinionated blog post rather than factual article).
> The other way in which you’re barking up the wrong tree is: you refuse to accept, understand or even think about what the Academy award is. It’s not a measure of the most popular film. It’s one particular institution choosing a film to say something about itself.
I disagree. It is a group of the best people from an industry which decides which was the best picture of the year. It should not be a statement about themselves but about the winner and the year.
>Finally, why look to imdb for a sense of what is popular. Wouldn’t box office indicate them–adjusted for inflation, say? There are plenty of charts like that on the internet.
I’m talking about Popular in the content sense, not as a sign of business success. Just because Titanic is the biggest box office hit of all time does not mean it was the most beloved content wise. I don’t think how much money a film makes should have any factor on best film of the year. But the overall opinion of the audience does. And IMDb is the biggest resource we have for the moviegoers afterthought.
>What is this mythical opinion of the “average person” you seek?
It’s not just the average person, its also the average critic (hence the Rotten Tomatoes mentions).
>If you just want to talk about unjustly overlooked films, well you kind of have a point. But weren’t other films that weren’t even nominated even more overlooked?
An article on the overlooked films of the Academy would be great. Although, I’m probably not the person to write that one.
Peter
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Peter,
ER,
PS writes: “First it’s obvious that hindsight is something I am blessed with….”
It’s not really a blessing. You just know what happened later.
PS: “It’s easy for me to criticise their choices because I know which films became classics….”
I am saying you do not have the right to criticize them because you know what happened later. We all know that. It’s nothing to brag about.
As for “which became classics,” that’s doubtful. Are you seriously saying “Toy Story 2,” whose failure to win awards you decry, is a “classic”? Or “Gangs of New York”? Now you’re just teasing us.
wrote: “to say something about their institution” and not because it was the best picture of the year. 50 Years from now it will be a historical footnote, not not much else).
>WHY is X better than Y? According to what set of criteria–and why are THOSE the criteria to apply in this case.
PS: “Opinion is like a joke, it’s all in the eye of the beholder. You can’t explain comedy, and I can’t convince you why one movie is better than another.”
But thoughtful people try. The key is: you’re not saying something about the movie, you’re pointing out something objective about how films get evaluated and by whom. Or you’re saying something about yourself, like ‘These criteria seem to me important in evaluating films.’
It was easy to see, for instance, why a critic like Pauline Kael liked certain films. A strong personality, a sense of liveliness, joy and fun-these were all important to her. You couldn’t *predict* what she’d like, but she was consistent about what “good” and “bad” meant to her.
I appreciate and admire the fact that this was a blog, and, as you say, written rather quickly. My hat’s off to you for being able to do this kind of work–and to get recognition for it.
That said, I still think a narrower point can be more effective–and it prevents you from writing more than you need. (It does double duty.)
PS writes about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: “It is a group of the best people from an industry which decides which was the best picture of the year. It should not be a statement about themselves but about the winner and the year.”
Here you’re just being willful.
What, they descended from heaven with a mission from On High to pick infallibly the best films each year? Come off it.
A quick glance at the Academy web site describes their mission:
“The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a professional honorary organization of over 6,000 motion picture professionals, was founded to advance the arts and sciences of motion pictures; foster cooperation among creative leaders for cultural, educational and technological progress; recognize outstanding achievements; cooperate on technical research and improvement of methods and equipment; provide a common forum and meeting ground for various branches and crafts; represent the viewpoint of actual creators of the motion picture; and foster educational activities between the professional community and the public-at-large.”
Like any other professional organization, the Academy in effect promotes themselves. They promote a certain vision of themselves, one defined around excellence. That “excellence” is always going to be limited–defined in ways that represent them well.
When you get dressed each morning, you do not pick what is objectively “the best shirt” that you have. There’s what’s clean, where you’re going, what will make a good impression.
Yes, maybe it’s the best you can do *that day*, but it also says something about you. That’s why you pick it. And why should the Academy be any different?
Are you perhaps being a bit naive in the way you treat the Academy? You want them to be infallible but know they aren’t and even thrive off it–otherwise you’d be out a blog topic.
As for “Popular in the content sense, not as a sign of business success” I just have no idea what you’re driving at. You later call it “most beloved content wise.” Aside from awkward phrasing, I’ll just point out that the Oscar isn’t the “most beloved award.”
And if it were, wouldn’t it have to be given later, much later?
Keep blogging.
I look forward to your blog on Overlooked and Neglected Films. (Skip Citizen Kane: it’s *both* overlooked *and* highly praised. But not really beloved. It’s too crabby for that.)
–E. R. O’Neill
February 24th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
I’ve seen How Green Was My Valley, it very deserving of the award. An amazing film directed by by John Ford at the top of his game.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I may be totally obtuse, but why, oh why did 1963’s award go to Tom Jones, and NOT to Lillies of the Field?
February 25th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Oliver! was a crappy music. Screw you, stupid prick. Go back to watching popcorn movies and don’t air your opinions in public, you’ll only embarrass yourself!
February 26th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Your numerous spelling and grammar errors, along with your errors regarding the release year of several films, undercuts your credibility enormously.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Six words: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
February 26th, 2007 at 6:51 am
“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is an brilliant film, but Jaws is better. Call me a Spielberg fanboy or whatever you want, you know I’m right.”
I know you’re not!
Jaws is ok but not nearly is memorable as cuckoo’s nest.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Brokeback Mountain should ve won the oscar the last year.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:27 am
How could you not mention the ultimate Academy tragedy? 1976 - “Rocky” beating the far superior “Taxi Driver;” not to mention that “Network” and “All the President’s Men” (also superior films to “Rocky”).
February 26th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Your list is so underrated. Where is Blade Runner? And, One Flew… is really better than jaws. And what about Kieslowski’s masterprice, Red (Three nomination, 0 wins)
February 26th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, #39 and 96%, one of the highest on Rotten Tomatoes, YET, no best picture. Kaufman and Gondry are brilliant.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Before you trash “How Green Was My Valley”, please watch it. It IS deserving of the award. Its John Ford’s best film, and sadly, because of the Citizen Kane thing, gets trashed all the time.
Though its blasphemy to most cine-philes, I think How Green Was My Valley is a better film.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:45 am
“Raiders of the Lost Ark or Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back (1981)”
You referred yourself as a film historian. You mentioned both imdb.com and rottentomatoes.com. You didn’t feel the need to check your own facts and see that Empire Strikes Back was released in 1980? That omission seems on par with the entire article.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Hey blythespyrt5:
Ouch!
What have I done to be treated so disrepectfully. It’s just an apostrophe.
Why don’t you comment on the article?
“Mr. Film Journalist Guy”??? Chill out man.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:43 am
If being a film journalist means tallying up between imdb.com and rottentomatoes.com, then everyone I know is a film journalist.
Why do you think that imdb.com user ratings hold any merit? I’ve always thought they were based in a demographic smaller and (sorry, but lack of a better word) “stupider” than a majority of the film-going audience. I mean, have you read any of the bulletins these voters post about movies? All they do is yell at one another.
I do agree with many of your points but you should use stronger sources if you want people to agree. Especially since it’s a web-based article and most people reading it probably know more than they need to about rottentomatoes and imdb.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:23 am
>A film like Brokeback Mountain for example is an easy mark however, because it >was chosen for the reason you wrote: “to say something about their institution” and >not because it was the best picture of the year. 50 Years from now it will be a >historical footnote, not not much else.
Maybe would’ve been an easy mark, if it would’ve won. But Crash won.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Alan,
go back and learn how to read. I never said I was a film historian. I said that I am not a film historian. Please double check your facts before bashing me next time, thanks.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Also, the Empire mistake has been corrected, thanks.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I disagree that Return of the King won because of the other movies, it was easily
the best of the three, I also disagree that Goodwill Hunting should’ve won best picture. The only other award that movie deserved was Minnie Driver for best supporting actress. The movie that should’ve won easily because it was the best movie that year and one of the best period, was L.A. Confidential, you reference the rotten tomatoes rating for Goodwill Hunting, check out L.A. Confidential’s 98%
February 26th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Kris, you have a point about L.A. Confidential, I don’t know how I passed over that one.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I pretty much can agree with most of your comments on Oscar winners but I thought Pulp Fiction royally sucked. Maybe it is because I am not a big Tarantino fan oh well. That is just my opinion. I also feel that American History X should have made some noise at the Oscars. Unbelievable movie, Edward Norton was oustanding in that role.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I think we can all agree that the oscars should never be thought of as an accurate representation of the best films from a given year. They often have overlooked or underrated films that were too obscure or provocative for the paletes of the industry types who do the voting. I agree with most of the comments, though I see a bias towards great American films and less mention of the veritable boatload of classics of the international cinema that in a perfect world would have at the very least been nominated. I speak here of many of the great works of Ozu, Kurosawa, Bergman, Fellini, and Goddard that form the basis of modern film language as we know it. Regrettably in the era that these films was made the process was mostly a popularitty contest, bearing little realtion to the merits of the film. Fortunately this seems to be changing as in recent years blockbusters have made way for smaller films that in some cases have done little to no business in the U.S. (Letters from Iwo Jima,
Babel and the Queen are far from the household big-budget names like Gladiator, Titanic and Forrest Gump that have previously dominated).
February 26th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Mystic River was an overrated piece of garbage. It amazes me that people hold it up as something good even still. The plot was laughable and Eastwood did a terrible job directing it. Was Return of the King a disappointment? Yes, and it probably didn’t deserve to win Best Picture. But Mystic River didn’t even deserve to be nominated. It was the most overrated movie since The Cider House Rules. Although The Departed looks like it is taking over that title from both of them…
February 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Ah, the great subjectivity of ranking movies. I do agree that for a more thorough analysis, you need stronger sources than IMDB and RT. Empire Strikes Back is a good example. Sure, the consensus now is that it’s the best of the series, but at the time you may remember that a lot of people were disappointed with it and almost none of the critics (Gene Siskel being the most notable exception) thought it was better than Star Wars. So it’s easy to look back on it now and say, “Why didn’t it win anything?” But if you look back to the reviews and popular opinion of the time there wasn’t ANY popular sentiment towards giving that film lots of Oscars, not from moviegoers and not from critics.
The year I’ve always had the biggest issue with personally is 1964. Two of my all-time favorites movies were up for Best Picture that year, Becket (which would’ve gotten my vote) and Dr. Strangelove, and both of them lost to My Fair Lady, a movie that I can’t stand. But again that’s my personal opinion, just as it’s your opinion that Jaws should’ve beaten Cuckoo’s Nest (which I happen to disagree with - even though again like with the TKAM/Lawrence comparison I find Jaws more watchable/enjoyable than Cuckoo’s Nest, I don’t think it was a better movie). I’m sure there are tons of MFL fans out there who’d be happy to take issue with my opinion and/or can’t stand the two movies that I happen to like.
Anyway, we all just have to remember that “Best Picture” does not always equal “most popular in the long term” or even “most influential” picture. That’s why it’s important IMO to look at awards in the context of their time when we judge them. As you pointed out, hardly anyone remembers Oliver! anymore, but we all remember Kubrick’s 2001 (and The Lion in Winter, Rosemary’s Baby, and Zeffirelli’s Romeo & Juliet, all of which were also up for Oscars in 1968). But in the context of the times (musicals being very popular with both the public and the Academy voters in the 1960’s - four of them won Best Picture in that decade), it makes sense. Just like it makes sense that the voters opted for the “safe” choice in 1952 in awarding Best Picture to “The Greatest Show on Earth” and not “High Noon,” even though you’d be hard-pressed to find a film critic or film student anywhere who thinks TGSOE is actually the better movie of the two. I’ve seen both and it’s not, but for a Hollywood that was still struggling with the blacklisting period, “High Noon” just hit far too close to home to give it that kind of award.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Oops. I had a comparison in there about “To Kill a Mockingbird” vs. “Lawrence of Arabia” in terms of the former being more accessible than the latter and probably more popular with the general public for that reason, but that being more accessible didn’t necessarily mean it was “better.” I took that out, but forgot to remove the reference to it when I was making the same comparison with “Jaws” and “Cuckoo’s Nest.” So that’s what that extra bit was about in the second paragraph.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
You haven’t heard of How Green Was My Valley? And you write about movies? You should be ashamed of yourself. Otherwise you’re generally right except there’s no way the totally forgetable Traffic is better than Gladiator. Gladiator has iconic status, as much as for Joachim Phoenix’s and Oliver Reed’s fantastic performances as anything and is one of those movies where people can and do recite whole chunks of the dialogue. That’s the sign of a great movie.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
What an asinine article. Its really easy to make yourself sound smart and well versed in film if all you’re going to do is take some of the most popular films of all time and argue they should have won Best Picture the year they came out. Yes I agree with a few of your choices, in other instances I prefer the Academy’s collective decision.
And Mystic River, are you kiding me with that one? Its as over-rated as Million Dollar Baby and Crash without having a best picture win. And more so thatn Million Dollar Baby it shows how out of touch with reality Clint Eastwood is.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I saw How Green Was My Valley. it wasn’t too bad, but not as good as Maltese Falcon or Citizen Kane.
Requim for a Dream is garbage, i find the only reason people like it is for the shock value. It is pretentious and one of the most over-done movies i have ever seen.
Good call on Apocolypse Now tho
February 26th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
This is possibly the worst bit of film journalism I’ve ever read. Did someone just give a website to a 10th grader and say “do whatever you want”?
The writer obviously knows jack about movies, and he’s just naming films that he thinks are important (mostly in hindsight) and saying they should have won Best Picture. No shit, buddy. The Academy’s decisions are very rarely just and, well… correct.
This is incredibly subjective and useless and this person should be required to watch more movies before he shoots his mouth off and makes himself look more like an idiot than he already does.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
A lot of the films you mentioned were not considered great at the time it was released, but its reputation grew as time passed. I think the Oscars votes conservatively.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
To the people that claim that I can’t possibly be a film journalist because I haven’t seen How Green Was My Valley:
First off, if you’re questioning my film viewing history: I see over 300 movies a year. I’ve seen most (probably 98%) of the movies on IMDb’s top 250.
Second, a film journalist is paid to write about movies. My sole living comes from writing about movies. I have no other job. And No, I don’t live with my parents. I live in one of the most expensive cities in the United States. I’m acredited by every major studio.
Third, I never claimed to be a film historian, I never said that John Ford’s film was bad, and I never misrepresented myself (I gave full disclosure that I didn’t see the movie). I researched the film and found that it was not on any of the major movie lists, in addition to critic list sites (RT, metacritic) and public opinion sites (imdb). The result is that the film is not considered one of the best of all time. I never said it was a bad movie. But when you win against Citizen Kane, you better have a legacy.
Fourth, If I knew that this list would have been so widely linked and read, I would have spent more time writing it. It was a top 10 list that spilled over into a feature blog post. And I write 10 of those a day.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Am I the only one who thinks that “Fargo” was better than “The English Patient” (1997 awards)?
February 26th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
You had so much going for you quoting Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB yet you keep on going back to your fan boy ways. Jaws better than One Flew Over? Did you even find five friends to agree with you on that one? And as far as Pulp Fiction goes, still remains the most overrated picture pretty much ever. It’s embarassing you would mention it over Shawshank. Once again you can check out IMDB on that one since you love to only quote it when it agrees with you.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
So what we’ve learned here is that movie tastes are subjective. I think a lot of the readers are trying to read to much into Peter’s list. He has his favorite films. You have yours. With that being said, here’s mine: ‘Royal Tenenbaums’. It was given lackluster reviews because the studio tried to sell it as a straight-out comedy, which it wasn’t. But as a ‘dramedy’ (damn I really hate that word), it was a multi-layered character study of family and lost dreams. When I see a film like that not even be nominated, I realize that Oscars have more to do with the release date of the film (September or later) and the past accomplishents of the actors and filmmakers.
But to say that this film was ‘better’ than that film is pointless.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I like Peter Jackson’s early work, but I didn’t care for the Lord of the Rings movies.
I’m still pissed that Kill Bill vol. 2 got left out in the cold, that movie had noteworthy performances all around, especially from Uma Thurman and David Carradine.
I think a mea culpa for passing on Suspiria is in order. Sure, Star Wars came out that year, and that was cool, but Dario Argento is a genius and long overdue for recognition. Hopefully La Terza Madre will change things. Why don’t many horror movies get noms? It seems mostly dramas and other highbrow films get the Oscars. Sure, some of those films are brilliant, like Babel for instance, but I’d like to see the look on their faces when some no-budget zombie flick gets called for Best Picture.
Also, did anyone from the Academy see Borat? Sacha Baron Cohen at least deserved the nod.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I’m not going to argue about the quality of different movies, since it’s all subjective, but I would like to point out a common error. For “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back,” you said, “Was Empire not as good [as 1977's 'Star Wars']? You simply cannot compare the results of two different Oscars ceremonies and draw conclusions about movies from different years. “Star Wars” of 1977 was nominated for Best Picture because it was one of the five movies most-deserving of that nomination, according to the Academy. The reason “Empire Strikes Back” was not nomiated is because it was not one of the five most-deserving movies of 1980 for that nomination. It’s not so much about the movie itself as it is the competition. In example, “Empire Strikes Back” could be better than all five Best Picture nominations for 1977, but it was not as good as the five Best Picture nominations of 1980’s movies.
Think of it this way, which is not necessarily my opinion but simply a hypothetical explanation:
five Best Picture nominations for 1980 > “Empire Strikes Back” > five Best Picture nominations of 1977.
However, as I said, you can’t compare the results. Every one of the five BP noms of 1977 could be better than “Empire” and the five BP noms of 1980, but my formula just shows how “Empire” could be “better” than “Star Wars” and still not receive a Best Pictue nomination.
I’ve just read so many people writing illogical things like: “The Academy is so stupid. ‘The Departed’ is not Scorsese’s best movie, but the Academy says it is.” That is not what the Academy is saying at all. It’s all about the competition in a given year.
Now, for my brief opinion. The Best Picture of 1997’s movies should have gone to “L.A. Confidential,” and “Boogie Nights” was the second-best of 1997 and deserved a BP nomination and a lot more than the three nominations it got.
As for the results of 1974’s Best Actor, the worst crime committed was Gene Hackman not being nominated for his subtle and brilliant performance in Francis Ford Coppola’s masterpiece, “The Conversation.”
For what it’s worth, I think the 1970s is definitely the best decade for movies. Every year has a few “masterpieces”and at least ten “classic” movies.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Good Will Hunting didn’t deserve the best Original Screenplay it was awarded, let alone Best Picture. How could any even suggest that the film deserved a Best Picture nod. As for it being better received by audiences, I don’t think so. Titanic is the
hightest grossing film of all time, where as Good Will Hunting was just another
forgetable 90s film.
You’ve never seen How Green Was My Valley, yet you’re saying it didn’t deserve
Best Picture. Just because many people haven’t seen a film doesn’t mean it isn’t
good. In fact in 1941 it was a pretty popular film, hence the reason it won. I like
Citizen Kane, but I disagree that it is the greatest movie of all time.
Apocalypse Now is an interesting film, but let’s be honest, it’s a huge mess.
The first two hours are alright, but the conclusion is rather weak and muddled.
And Fight Club didn’t deserve any nod, because frankly it isn’t very good.
It’s gotten so much praise, yet it has a huge plot hole that it can’t overcome, that being the whole idea of Fight Club was started because two guys saw one crazed
dude beating himself up in an alley. Of course, we don’t know that until the
predictable twist in the middle of story, but it’s still a huge gaping plot hole that
is hard to overcome.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
You call yourself a journalist? Your style of writing too closely resembles that of a whining baby who didn’t get what she wanted for Christmas and can do nothing but cry about it.
Your whole article is based on unfounded rankings without any justified reason. What is your point anyway? Some movies just get more recognition over the years. E.g.
Rembrant never sold a painting during his lifetime- now his works are priceless. Same with Citizen Kane! It released to opposing views, now is considered by some to be the greatest film of all-time. I really don’t get the whole point of this article…..
February 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I’m pretty sure i’ve read all the replies and im just wondering how no one has mentioned Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. I mean that has to have been the biggest shocker in academy history as far as I’m concerned. Yes Ryan isn’t perfect but it screams Best Picture.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I agree! “How Green Was My Valley” Is just one gigantic, depressing flashback! The Maltese Falcon is genius. Not PURE genius, but genius none the less.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
1993 The Player for Unforgiven
1990 Born on the Fourth of July for Driving Miss Daisy
1997 Shine for The English Patient
1995 Shawshank Redemption for Forrest Gump
1999 Life Is Beautiful for Shakespeare In Love
1991 Goodfellas for Dances with Wolves
2000 The Insider for American Beauty
subjective but all mine
February 26th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
One explanation for the strange voting anomalies is the use of plurality or first-past-the-post voting for the Academy Awards. This system works reliably only when there are two choices. Additional choices create such problems as vote splitting and frequently result in the true favorite of a group of voters not winning. Here is a piece that looks at how the Academy Awards voting system may have resulted in the wrong nominee winning: Why the Academy Awardsâ may fail to pick the “best picture” — again.
Note that AMPAS uses a ranked/proportional system for selecting nominees, and this should produce a fairly accurate reflection of the voters’ actual preference. The IMDB uses a complex ranked system to produce its list (the IMDB site explains it). The AFI rankings were, if memory serves, derived by using the Borda Count.
No system for determining the true preferences of a group of people is perfect, however some are very good. Best would be Condorcet’s system, though Borda produces reasonably good results (it is also used by the NCAA for coming up with team rankings).
February 26th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I do agree on most arguments except for the argument that Mystic River was better than LOTR - ROTK. In some cases, the author used IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes as justification for his arguments:
LOTR: ROTK is rated at No 5 in IMDB vis-a-vis Mystic River rated at No 185
As far as Rotten Tomatoes goes, Mystic River has a tomatometer rating of 86% with an average rating of 7.7. Compare that with ROTK with a tomatometer of 93% and an average rating of 8.g.
To conclude, both users (IMDB) and critics (rottentomatoes) agree that ROTK is a much better movie.
In future, while writing such articles, all I ask of the author is to use the same yardstick for there are some movewatchers who may actually think what you are saying is true.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I do agree on most arguments except for the argument that Mystic River was better than LOTR - ROTK. In some cases, the author used IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes as justification for his arguments:
LOTR: ROTK is rated at No 5 in IMDB vis-a-vis Mystic River rated at No 185
As far as Rotten Tomatoes goes, Mystic River has a tomatometer rating of 86% with an average rating of 7.7. Compare that with ROTK with a tomatometer of 93% and an average rating of 8.6.
To conclude, both users (IMDB) and critics (rottentomatoes) agree that ROTK is a much better movie.
In future, while writing such articles, all I ask of the author is to use the same yardstick for there are some movewatchers who may actually think what you are saying is true.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I agree with Neal that How Green Was My valley is an amazing film. It shouldn’t just be treated as a footnote.
The 1976 Rocky win which Biff Tannen brings up is interesting. It shows how the Academy is in love not only with long overdue awards (this year Scorsese and Mirren) but with rags-to-riches stories.
Jennifer Hudson clearly fits into this category. Rocky is just a film incarnation of the myth Hollywood likes to
propound about itself.
Tip to Peter: there is a difference between discussing what appears on other web sites and treating it as an authority which makes you right. The former is quite legit but the latter is suspect. “People say so on imdb” doesn’t mean you’re right because you agree.
Dan Morgan makes some interesting points. The Queen, Babel and Letters from Iowa Jima are a long way from Oliver! Yes, Scorsese was given an award by his once-radical pals. But this seemed to be the year of a more global, more inclusive Hollywood
BUT I wish people wouldn’t just say this or that film is “crap” or “garbage.”
I disagree with Mike about Mystic River, for instance, but mostly I disagree, Mike, with your way of making your point: “garbage,” “laughable,” “terrible.” Using such words you don’t make a case that helps us to see things your way. You’re just trash-talking.
Now the ironic point for me about Mystic River is that id did win two Oscars for acting, but then none for directing or best picture, so apparently those performances directed themselves and appeared in a rather limp picture.
More to my view would be the idea that Eastwood is a classical director: he’s restrained, doesn’t show himself off, and tries to work *through* the performances.
Jim’s points I find particularly sharp.
Looking back at Empire Strikes Back reviews is informative,
and 1964 is a good case of a popular musical winning out over more serious or political fare.
Clearly by the time of Cuckoo’s Nest political statement was more in fashion–as it continued to be for Crash to the expense of Brokeback (*too* political?).
Peter–you’ve seen 98% of IMDB’s top 250. What’s your goal there? Winning on Jeopardy? It’s like you’re trying to synch yourself up with other people’s taste, all the while arguing that your own is superior to that of Academy voters. I just don’t get that.
But I don’t want to make a pile-on, which this page has all the
earmarks of becoming.
So I’ll just say: don’t defend yourself, just graciously accept criticism as if it’s making you a better person and leaving your critics feeling shamefaced for taking you to task.
Best,
Edward R. O’Neill
February 26th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
A more specific topic is: Academy Award-winning films whose reputation has declined seriously since the award was given.
My votes are:
1930-31: Cimarron
1932-33: Cavalcade
1936: The Great Ziegfeld
1942: Mrs. Miniver
1944: Going My Way
1952: The Greatest Show on Earth
1955: Marty
1956: Around the World in 80 Days
These were respected at the time but don’t really stand up well 50 or 70 years later–then again, who or what will?
More recently (and more riskily):
1973: The Sting
1982: Gandhi
1987: The Last Emperor
1989: Driving Miss Daisy
–Edward R. O’Neill
February 26th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
All the greatest art works in all media are great because they have endured. Van Gogh for example was rejected by his peers and the public in his lifetime, yet just look how beautiful his paintings are. Our collective culture has celebrated them for this. I think the Academy cannot possibly select “the Best Film” because the standards by which we measure great art do not exist in the time period a film is made. Go back and see some Hitchcock movies (to name a more mainstream Director). His films today exude a sexual perversity and odd morality that was seen by few when the films came out. This makes them far more interesting today, to modern viewers. Sure, at the time they came out the had fine production values, music etc. and were recognized as being well made, but the overall beauty of his films come from a more modern understanding of sexuality & psychology that the average filmgoer (or academy member) in his era did not have. Another point to make is that many of the most provocative and interesting movies in the last 25 years have had nothing to do with anyone in Hollywood or the major film industries of any country except perhaps for distribution purposes. SO there is an inherent flaw to a system that has no capacity to recognize what it cannot recognize. I hope Edward O’Neill is a film journalist, I have to go look you up, you are far more intelligent in your analysis than anyone else I have read on hear. I hope you have a blog.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
>Peter–you’ve seen 98% of IMDB’s top 250. What’s your goal there? Winning on Jeopardy?
Nope, I was replying to the crit from you and a couple others that said that just because I hadn’t seen one movie meant that I didn’t have a film background.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Thanks, John Stacy. Click on my name and it’s linked to my blog, though that’s mostly just personal trivia, not so much film criticism.
Peter, I think the thing that puzzles some of us is how you feel you authorize and justify your expertise in this area.
You know a lot about movies, without a doubt. But then you seem somewhat careless about focusing your point. But I guess that’s part of journalism–working quickly.
Your standard for what a reference work is leaves something to be desired.
There are some decent books about cinema, too. Journals as well. There’s more to (movie) life than rottentomatoes.com.
I think a few of us would simply like to see you craft your points more precisely and narrowly and draw from a broader range of more authorized sources.
Best,
Ed O’Neill
February 27th, 2007 at 3:56 am
Please let’s not forget last year with Brokeback Mountain losing Best Picture to Crash. Was Crash a powerful movie? Absolutely, but in NO way, shape, or form did it deserve to win such a prestigious award. Poor Ang was definitely robbed.
February 27th, 2007 at 4:15 am
“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is an brilliant film,”
Yep.
“…but Jaws is better.”
Nope.
“Call me a Spielberg fanboy”
You are a Spielberg fanboy.
“or whatever you want,”
You are a Spielberg fanboi with an AWFUL taste in film.
“you know I’m right.”
nah, but I do know Jaws and ET are both overrated tripe.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Return of the King Rules !!!!! and Thats all
March 6th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Well I think we are forgetting one film, The Clockwork orange is much better in lots of ways against French Connection which is a good movie but nothing more.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
i really like this movie! i think that it should get an award
March 26th, 2007 at 9:01 am
the most difficult year to judge for me has to be 1994. pulp fiction to me is probably the best movie ever made. i love forest gump almost as much. on creativity i have to give the edge to pulp fiction but, forrest gump is a great film that gives people hope and warm feelings. so i understand why it won best picture, but how the hell did it lose in best director. makes no sense to me. you can also make an argument for shawshank redemption. all of those films could have won in other years.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I really think the “The Ten Commandments” should have won best picture in 1956, that’s all I have to say.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
“…Dances With Wolves. A film which I might add, isn’t in the list of the top 200 films ever made (again, on imdb or any other list). ”
Dances With Wolves is number 75 on the AFI top 100. Maybe next time you should do a little research.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
AFI’s lists are considered a joke by hollywood
April 16th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
This may sound stupid , “where is Titanic?” JAWS is the best out of all of them. It ranks 38th out 50 greatest films. Yea, i’m right. No really i am.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
1999 is a sore subject for me when discussing films. I liked “American Beauty,” especially for its subject matter, but feel it was a little superficial and really only scratched the surface of what could have been done with it.
I agree with the author about “Fight Club.” It should have at least been nominated. But the real Best Picture of 1999 was Michael Mann’s “The Insider.”
May 14th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
WHAT ABOUT SPIDERMAN 1,2 OR THE MATRIXES.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I agree with Mr. Cuff “10 Commandments” should have easily won the Oscar for best picture in 1956. “Around the World in 80 Days” was an ultimately boring travelogue.
The Academy has made so many mistakes. Judy Garland and Susan Hayward losing Oscars in 1954 and 1955 respectively for “A Star is Born,” and “I”ll Cry Tomorrow were ridiculous. Winners Grace Kelly and Anna Magnani could only wish that they were half-as good as Judy & Susan.
In 1943, “Casablanca” should have tied with “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” Both these films were the greatest love stories put on film.
Thank G-d the Academy picked “Gentleman’s Agrreement” as best picture of 1947. That film was so good because it hit religious prejudice right on the head. Gregory Peck didn’t win the best actor award for it and that was a shame.
By the way, how did Ernest Borgnine ever win for “Marty?” The award should have gone to Cagney for “Love Me or Leave Me.” No question about it. Doris Day not being nominated was a real surprise. Jennifer Jones was good in “Love is A Many Splendored Thing” but her nomination should have come that same year for “Good Morning, Miss Dove.” Why? She totally captured the image of the American spinster schoolteacher.
How could Robert Stack lose the supporting award for “Written on the Wind” to Anthony Quinn for “Lust for Life?” Quinn was barely on the screen. In additon, Kirk Douglas losing in “Lust for Life” to Yul Brynner for “The King and I” smacks of anti-Semitism.
No one mentions the joke of Liz Taylor winning for “Butterfield 8″ in 1960. Shirley Mac Laine should have gotten it for “The Apartment.”
While “Mrs. Miniver” deserved the Oscar for best picture of 1942, Greer Garson and Teresa Wright didn’t deserve their awards for that film. Bette Davis and Gladys Cooper should have been Oscared for “Now, Voyager.”
Anyone who thinks that “How Green Was My Valley” wasn’t a great film was a fool. In capturing the lives of Welsh coal miners, director John Ford created a masterpiece. It deserved the Oscar hands down. In addition, Sara Allgood should have won for supporting actress in that film instead of Mary Astor for “The Great Lie.” She won for the same reason that John Wayne and Gary Cooper won- popularity contests. Dusty Hoffman and Jose Ferrer (”Moulin Rouger”) were so much better in their respective years.
While I liked Maggie Smith in “California Suite,” who could ever forget Maureen Stapleton in “Interiors?” Ditto for Geraldine Page in the latter film.
You had to be out of your mind to think of “Out of Africa” as best film of 1985. The winner should have easily been “The Color Purple.”
December 5th, 2007 at 9:26 am
this is really cool stuff lol njk
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 am
Wat about ‘The Green Mile’ it was a fantastic movie.. I hope it won an Academy, cause it was fantastic…
January 14th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I ca