web counter
 

Irrefutable Evidence that Oscar Voters Have a Serious Case of Head-Up-Ass

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Guides | Comments (97)

eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-original.jpg

Earlier today, in ranking the Academy Award’s Best Picture Winners from the last 25 years, like many of you, I was taken aback at how generally weak the field of Best Picture Winners was from which to choose. The idea that many were Oscar Winners, much less nominees, seems laughable now; many of those Oscar winners have been completely forgotten over the last two decades.

Initially, I’d planned on a follow-up, ranking another list of 25 films based on the Oscar nominees each year that should’ve won Best Picture. However, that too felt meager. Even selecting among the five nominees (or 10, last year), it felt like many more worthy films were being left out of the equation.

So, I decided to add in what I thought was the actual Best Picture of each year based upon its 1) entertainment value, 2) its staying power, and 3) its overall legacy, regardless of whether it was nominated for anything. What it revealed, at least based on my opinion, was that the Academy has only really gotten it right four times over the last 25 years, by not only nominating the best film but actually choosing it as Best Picture Winner.

Reasonable minds could disagree about what the actual Best Movie in any given year was, but where my selection for Best Movie differs from the ultimate Oscar winner, I would guess that — given the benefit of hindsight — only a minority would’ve selected the Academy’s choice over the Best Movie choices below.

And isn’t that really what the the Academy is supposed to choose? The films that will still mean something 5, 10 or 50 years from now? If that is, indeed, the criteria, then the Academy voters have, with a few exceptions, failed miserably over the last 25 years.


1985

Best Movie: Back to the Future

Best Nominee: The Color Purple

Oscar Winner: Out of Africa


1986

Best Movie: Aliens

Best Nominee: Platoon

Oscar Winner Platoon


1987

Best Movie: Full Metal Jacket

Best Nominee: Hope and Glory

Oscar Winner: The Last Emperor


1988

Best Movie: Die Hard (1988)

Best Nominee: Mississippi Burning

Oscar Winner: Rain Man


1989

Best Movie: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Best Nominee: My Left Foot

Oscar Winner: Driving Miss Daisy


1990

Best Movie: Goodfellas

Best Nominee: Goodfellas

Oscar Winner: Dances with Wolves


1991

Best Movie: Silence of the Lambs

Best Nominee: Silence of the Lambs

Oscar Winner: Silence of the Lambs


1992

Best Movie: Reservoir Dogs

Best Nominee: Unforgiven

Oscar Winner: Unforgiven


1993

Best Movie: Schindler’s List

Best Nominee: Schindler’s List

Oscar Winner: Schindler’s List


1994

Best Movie: Pulp Fiction

Best Nominee: Pulp Fiction

Oscar Winner: Forrest Gump


1995

Best Movie: The Usual Suspects

Best Nominee: Braveheart

Oscar Winner: Braveheart


1996

Best Movie: Fargo

Best Nominee: Fargo

Oscar Winner: English Patient

1997

Best Movie: L.A. Confidential

Best Nominee: L.A. Confidential

Oscar Winner: Titanic


1998

Best Movie: The Big Lebowski

Best Nominee: Saving Private Ryan

Oscar Winner: Shakespeare in Love


1999

Best Movie: Fight Club

Best Nominee: The Insider

Oscar Winner: American Beauty


2000

Best Movie: Memento

Best Nominee: Traffic

Oscar Winner: Gladiator


2001

Best Movie: Amelie

Best Nominee: Moulin Rouge

Oscar Winner: A Beautiful Mind


2002

Best Movie: City of God

Best Nominee: The Pianist

Oscar Winner: Chicago


2003

Best Movie: Oldboy

Best Nominee: Lost in Translation

Oscar Winner: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King


2004

Best Movie: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Best Nominee: Sideways

Oscar Winner: Million Dollar Baby


2005

Best Movie: Brokeback Mountain

Best Nominee: Brokeback Mountain

Oscar Winner: Crash


2006

Best Movie: Children of Men

Best Nominee: The Departed

Oscar Winner: The Departed


2007

Best Movie: No Country for Old Men

Best Nominee: No Country for Old Men

Oscar Winner: No Country for Old Men


2008

Best Movie: The Dark Knight

Best Nominee: Milk

Oscar Winner: Slumdog Millionaire


2009

Best Movie: The Hurt Locker

Best Nominee: The Hurt Locker

Oscar Winner: The Hurt Locker










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← Pajiba After Dark 2/23/11 | Bereavement Trailer: That Ain't No Way To Raise A Child →









Comments

Children of Men -- hell's yes. I'm still bitter is wasn't even nominated. And don't even get me started on The Departed -- an entertaining movie to be sure, but Best Picture?!

Posted by: Nikkers at February 23, 2011 2:46 PM

Hm, yeah. I see what you're doing here, but I dunno. I disagree with a lot of your "Best Movie" choices. I'd get into why, but I'm way too fuckin' bagged.

Posted by: Sapphiar at February 23, 2011 2:50 PM

Hee. Gotta love that you started the list with one of Dame Streep's best films. I'll grant you most of the list, but do you really think "only a minority would’ve selected" Out of Friggin' Africa over Back to the Future? Say what you will about entertainment value (and BthF was totes my favorite movie when I was 8), but I'm going to go out on a limb and say OoA was a better *film* in almost every sense. Maybe you should watch it again? "I had a fahrm in Ahfrica.."

Posted by: Jessica at February 23, 2011 2:54 PM

Chicago won best picture? Jesus tapdancing christ, that's almost as bad as Crash.

Posted by: The_wakeful at February 23, 2011 2:56 PM

Isn't there an unofficial rule that when someone new announces their presence, or does somthing interesting and different, they get the writing Oscar? c.f Tarantion, Thornton, Shanley, Payne. It's a kind of consolation prize.This bodes ill for The Social Network.

And the Academy loves actor turned directors.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at February 23, 2011 2:58 PM

I will argue until the end of time that Goodfellas is Scorsese's best movie.

Saving Private Ryan was so screwed. So very, very screwed.

Posted by: Melody at February 23, 2011 2:59 PM

Wait, Pulp Fiction or Pulp Friction? The latter was really good and little seen.

Posted by: sars at February 23, 2011 3:03 PM

Children of Men means this list is legit.

Posted by: Will at February 23, 2011 3:04 PM

I pretty much agree with all your choices.

I wonder how does the Academy Award's track record compare to the other two major awards shows: The Grammy Awards and Emmy Awards?

Posted by: John W at February 23, 2011 3:06 PM

"Best Nominee: Moulin Rouge"

Nooooooooooooooooo. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. And for those who didn't hear it the first time, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, followed by a second helping of NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO and for desert, pie a la
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I'll take my coffee with two cubes of NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Posted by: D-Day at February 23, 2011 3:11 PM

What the hell happens in the end of Brokeback Mountain that supposedly makes it such a great film? Because I made it through about 2/3 of it before I simply couldn't take the boredom anymore and turned it off. There was absolutely nothing happening in that movie. Oh, they were gay? So what? That doesn't make it an interesting story.

Posted by: Paultera at February 23, 2011 3:12 PM

Oldboy?! I love you so much.

Posted by: coveredinbees at February 23, 2011 3:13 PM

Paultera, it's complete freaking heartbreak at the end. I'm a sucker for those. Nevertheless, I thought the movie was soooo well done.

Oh, they were gay? So what?
That's kind of a big part of the point.

Posted by: sars at February 23, 2011 3:15 PM

I'd give both Unforgiven and the Departed sweeps for all three categories.

Posted by: that guy at February 23, 2011 3:15 PM

Forrest Gump I thought was better than Pulp Fiction and Saving Private Ryan was better than The Big Lebowski (granted, all are excellent movies).
I don't see how The Hurt Locker is the best movie from last year though, especially since there were two better war movies (District 9 and Inglourious Basterds). Personally, I felt District 9 was the best and should have won.

Posted by: KaGe at February 23, 2011 3:16 PM

I just always assumed that City of God won Best Foreign Language film when it came out so I was getting ready to second guess its inclusion. To see it wasn't even nominated is jaw dropping.

Oh and as much as I like Braveheart, I can't be convinced that Apollo 13 is not a better film on every level.

Posted by: Brian K at February 23, 2011 3:17 PM

I still maintain that There Will Be Blood was miles better than No Country For Old Men. Paul Thomas Anderson! Daniel Day Lewis! Johnny Greenwood! Death by bowling pin! That movie kicked my ass I swear.

Posted by: Ashley at February 23, 2011 3:22 PM

Jesus tapdancing christ

Tommy Oliver says Jesus didn't tap.

Posted by: L4NkYb at February 23, 2011 3:22 PM


Although I've never seen one, I believe the Oscar ballots must look a bit like this:

Film involves a physical or mental disability?
Yes +100 points; No -1000 points

Film makes the voters feel good about supporting an issue without actually having to do anything about it?

Yes +1000 points; No -100 points

Film was directed by someone who should have won for something else but never did and now is past his prime and needs a nod?

Yes +1,000,000 points; No: zero points

Film portrays a very complicated issue/story in an exceedingly simplified good versus evil way so we all know what side we're on?

Yes +2,000 points; No: -500 points

Film involves a stunningly beautiful woman looking a little dowdy (aka ugly in Hollywood terms)?

Yes +4,000,000 points; No: -1,000,000 points

And with a nod to Ricky Gervais: Film is about the Holocaust:

Yes +5,000 points; No -1,000 points

Posted by: PaddyDog at February 23, 2011 3:22 PM

I think the first half of this list is heavy on the action/adventure & violence. Are these the best movies from any given year for the Dustin of said year?

Posted by: Sara Tonin at February 23, 2011 3:29 PM

Very nice. Thank you.

Posted by: YoMama at February 23, 2011 3:41 PM

I really really really still do not understand all the hype about The Hurt Locker...the fact is my friends in the military comunity all consider it a comedy or almost a farce. Kinda like the way bartenders view Cocktail and bouncers view Roadhouse!

Posted by: Trash at February 23, 2011 3:43 PM

Agreed with a lot of the things you said but here are my takes:

Unforgiven is better than Reservoir Dogs
Braveheart is better than Usual Suspects
Saving Private Ryan was by far the best movie of '98
American Beauty was the best movie in '99
Gladiator is the BEST movie ever made
LOTR should have swept years '01 - '03, all the other movies were mediocre at best
Walk the Line was the best movie in '05
I liked Juno the best in '07 out of the nominees although not one of my favorite films. No Country wasn't spectacular and I think I may be the only person in the world that despised There Will be Blood.
Inglorius Bastards was the best movie in '09
Inception should win for '10

Posted by: Todd A at February 23, 2011 3:52 PM

Oh, Dustin, you besmirched Out of Africa? You besmirched Out of Africa?! Seriously? And suggest that Back to the Future is the better film?! I, I don't know what to say. You cut me deep.

Out of Africa is one of my favorite fillms. As is The Color Purple. In fact, I own them both.

And this is where I point out the wisdom of what Matt Damon (and I know this has been mentioned on Pajiba before, and not just by me) suggested years ago. The Academy Awards should be given out 10 years after the mopvies have come out, when the films and performances have stood the test of time.

Posted by: tamatha at February 23, 2011 4:09 PM

The Dark Knight? Really? Yes, much of it was surprisingly excellent, but it was weighed down with too much canon. It should not have attempted to squeeze so many plot points into a 3-hour period. I respect the canon and was thrilled to see each part--but all in one movie? No. It was exhausting, interminable, and not well-paced. I don't care that this makes me sound like the Emperor in Amadeus: "Too many notes."

And also, no shout out to Gordon's daughter? That scene's all about how much he must love his son, while fucking future!BatGirl/Oracle is IN THE SCENE, unnamed and barely on screen! Who gives a shit about a wife and daughter when a son is threatened! I stand corrected; apparently Nolan chose one piece of canon to leave out--a future heroine.

Posted by: Joanna at February 23, 2011 4:12 PM

Moulin Rouge! was seriously considered Oscar material?? I mean, it's cheesy fun, but THE film of the year? No.

Oh wait, I totally take that back. It was SO much better than A Beautiful Mind. I mean, at least it was entertaining and made me like "Roxanne" and Nicole Kidman (albeit for a fleeting moment.) A Beautiful Mind was just...hhhhrrrrrrrr.

And I liked The Hurt Locker enough, but let's be real here: District 9. Inglourious Basterds. Up. All of these will have a longer legacy. But at least it wasn't Avatar.

Posted by: penelope at February 23, 2011 4:13 PM

1994 is just plumb wrong. Pulp Fiction did some interesting things, but The Shawshank Redemption should have beaten both PF and Forrest Gump.

According your your 3 points (entertainment value, staying power and legacy), the only one that could go in Pulp Fiction's favor is "legacy" insomuch as it is often cited as a) the movie that resurrected John Travolta's career, b) a movie that did interesting things with linearity, c) Gave us Samuel "Mutherfucking" Jackson and his bucket of catch phrases.

So while Pulp Fiction may hold up in film class where various techniques are debated an analyzed, it doesn't have the staying power or re-viewing value of Shawshank.

Shawshank is a near perfect movie in terms of pacing, acting and pathos. It doesn't break any new ground with jittercam effects, or split-cut or out of sequence shots, or cameo shock value or any other filmmaker puffery.

It simply tells a captivating story very very well.

Posted by: morganew at February 23, 2011 4:18 PM

So, I actually have a questions someone here may know the answer to. As I understand it, the producers/ destributers/ whoever decides these things for a foreign film can submit the film for consideration for Best Foreign Film or Best Picture, not both, so they basically have to judge their chances before nominations even occur. Because of this, most folks decide to hedge their bets and go with Best Foreign since the US doesn't usually give much attention to foreign films in general. Does anyone know if this is actually the case?

Posted by: lumenatrix at February 23, 2011 4:24 PM

er, question should be singular and *distributor. I can't spell today.

Posted by: lumenatrix at February 23, 2011 4:25 PM

@Paultera
There was absolutely nothing happening in that movie. Oh, they were gay? So what? That doesn't make it an interesting story.

I understand that it is not everyone's cup of tea. It is difficult to watch at times. These actors and director took a huge leap making this film. They were trying to get it made for years until the found actors with the balls to do the parts well. Now, I have Rob Lowe kissing a man on Californication to show his commitment to the part of playing a gay man. Playing gay is the new hot girl getting ugly for a part you know.
I think most people were upset about Crash winning that year. Really, it was pure garbage and because of that snub Brokeback Mountain will always be revered.

Posted by: daria at February 23, 2011 4:29 PM

I'm with Sara Tonin on this one (hehehe, serotonin). While I admire what you're doing, Dustin, (and I even agree with most of your choices) it seems more like a list of "The Best Film from Each Year Based on How Old I Was During Said Year."

Posted by: mc at February 23, 2011 4:34 PM

Oh Eternal Sunshine. That is the one movie I wish I'd written. And I have no desire to write anything, much less movies. That's how good it is. Don't even get me started on how Jim Carrey was fucking robbed.

Posted by: Az at February 23, 2011 4:35 PM

The Departed is MUCH more than just an entertaining film. Talk about heartbreaking. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but Leo's performance really stands out as one of the best of the last 25 years, and I agree with that guy that it should have swept all three categories.

And I'm with you, Paultera. I wanted to tear my eyes out from boredom. Heath Ledger was great, but the movie overall did nothing for me.

Posted by: Mel C. at February 23, 2011 4:37 PM

I think your own list shows how dramatically things can change. While I enjoyed The Hurt Locker, I doubt it will be remembered 5, 10 or 50 years from now. In 10 years time, someone else will look back and ask what the Acadamy was thinking with regard to that one.

Posted by: Kerminy at February 23, 2011 4:40 PM

Todd A, I'm sorry, but no. Because of the comments in this list, every time you give an opinion, I will know that I most likely think the opposite. Gladiator the best movie ever? Braveheart better than The Usual Suspects?? I'm hoping it's sarcasm, but if not? Wow. Saving Private Ryan the best movie of '98?!? Just, no.

Posted by: noodlestein at February 23, 2011 4:42 PM

You lost me on this list (and the one earlier today) with your clear disdain for Out of Africa. Sure, it's slow and quiet, but those aren't necessarily mortal sins. Or perhaps they are, given some of the entries on this list.

Posted by: Captain Tuttle at February 23, 2011 4:49 PM

Sidney Pollock directed many good films in his career, but Out of Africa was simply BORING.

Posted by: OldSchool60 at February 23, 2011 4:52 PM

PaddyDog, I see you've found the secret formula. But "The Pianist" didn't win! So I think there was an addendum. Maybe it is, directed by a pedaphile forfeit all points. (Doesn't apply to Best Director category.)

Posted by: sittingpat at February 23, 2011 5:02 PM

i don't buy this courageous controversy thing about brokeback. it got made because it is now safe, because others broke ground. its a middling, watchable but somewhat boring story about a long affair. Same Time Next Year, except with two dudes and no context or subtext or depth.

i don't think something should get best picture because it is momentarily (and arguably mistakenly) regarded as topical.

caveat, i would award it before Crash. If Crash had been the only nominee, I'd just cancel the award that year.

I will have to rewatch no country for old men some day. i'm a long time fan of the cohen brothers (since crimewave), but that movie seemed really boring and pointless, and yet people talk about it like it was delivered by the gods.

Posted by: idleprimate at February 23, 2011 5:11 PM

Agreed sittingpat. The Pianist does upset the formula, but as you point out, there was that pesky Polanski issue. They couldn't give him Best Director and Best Picture or their morals might be impugned.

For me any moral high ground the Academy of Motion Pictures ever had became laughable the year they gave Leni Riefenstahl a nod in the In Memoriam section. There was audible clapping when her name came up, and it can't all have come from Mel Gibson.

Posted by: PaddyDog at February 23, 2011 5:13 PM

I can let it slide that you think Back to the Future is better than Brazil, Real Genius, Better Off Dead, Fletch, Spies Like Us, The Breakfast Club, Silverado, Weird Science and The Goonies. Ok, maybe I'm not letting it slide. but anyway. May I direct your attention to 1989. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? WTF? Say Anything..., Glory, Parenthood, Do the Right Thing, Field of Dreams, hell, Road House, Sex, Lies, and Videotape, and Batman.

Alright, scratch my bitching. I just figured out what you did. IMDb, pick a year, sort by user rating, grab the first widely recognizable movie.

Posted by: LwoodPDowd at February 23, 2011 5:26 PM

Holy shit.
i had only just recently gotten over my Rain Man rage.
Die Hard was the same year?

Urge to kill... rising...

Posted by: scott at February 23, 2011 5:27 PM

sars... the point of the movie wasn't "they're gay, so what" as in.. "its okay to be gay and in love".. the point of the movie was that they took a typical love story thats been seen a million times, and convinced two popular male celebs to be in it, knowing that it would be divisive simply because they were gay in the film.

I'm super pro-gay rights, and I think Brokeback is ridiculous because movie is secondary to the gay-centric discussion that they knew would come out of it.

And, its also just a big ole boring movie. Slow moving does not always equal boring. In this case, however, it does.

Posted by: Boomer at February 23, 2011 5:56 PM

As much as I hate CRASH I still hear some people talk about it from time to time. Most of it is anti-CRASH but I do know people who liked it. The real head scratcher is CHICAGO I have never even met anyone that saw it.

Posted by: junierizzle at February 23, 2011 6:15 PM

Seconding LwoodPDowd. And 1997 just makes me do this:

http://tinyurl.com/4aejmvx

Posted by: Three-nineteen at February 23, 2011 6:22 PM

idleprimate,

Exactly. I saw no real story anywhere. For the filmmakers, the controversy of them being gay was a welcomed and fully anticipated reaction. After I watched it I figured that's all it was. A bad film that was over hyped due to touchy content but I still hear to this day what a great film it was and I simply don't see it.

Posted by: Paultera at February 23, 2011 6:22 PM

Dustin, you have taken me back to the angry place. The angry place is dark with brightly colored strobe lights. It has sharp, pointy teeth that bite you. And Taylor Swift's music plays on an unending loop. I am leaving now.

Posted by: greer at February 23, 2011 6:32 PM

Best Movie Reservoir Dogs

Nope. Unforgiven was chosen correctly.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 23, 2011 6:37 PM

Truth be told, 1999 was a hell of a year for good films. Not only those three, but also Being John Malkovich, The Sixth Sense, The Matrix, Arlington Road, Go!, Three Kings, Magnolia... Sure, they're not all award-winning material, but there was fun back then!

2004 still makes me cringe and kick. I don't wanna talk about it.

Todd A, I'm sorry for you. Deeply.

About 2008: let's be real that The Dark Knight absolutely was the best movie of the year, but, looking back at the Academy's long history of hardly awarding the best, I wasn't expecting anything. It's just about sitting back, enjoying good old Bats and fuck the voters.

"I really really really still do not understand all the hype about The Hurt Locker" -- I honestly have no idea of why that movie is so praised. It's nice, just plain "haven't wasted my two precious hours" nice at best.

After looking at that beautifully crafted list, I invite you guys to close your eyes for a moment and reflect on the fact that The English Patient, Titanic and Shakespeare in Love all won in a category named "Best movie of the year" in their respective years, in a row. Now, please, ask yourselves: are the Oscars still serious enough (enough!) to be debate-wort -- no, make that "appreciation-worthy", really?

Posted by: godzilla_foil at February 23, 2011 6:40 PM

You had me right up to 2009. The Hurt Locker will be just another war movie a decade from now. Inglourious Basterds will still be dazzling people.

Posted by: The Mutt at February 23, 2011 6:45 PM

Yeah, I must be weird, because I never understood the unabashed love for Children of Men. It seemed entirely predictable and boring to me. I much preferred The Departed. Which is surprising, because I'm a fan of dystopian-future movies and not really a fan of DiCaprio.

I liked Chicago and thought it was fine. Maybe not Best Movie fine, but it holds up today. Certainly better than that abomination Moulin Rouge which no one could pay me to see again due to the retinal scarring from fast-forwarding it through it once already.

Posted by: Wednesday at February 23, 2011 6:51 PM

no wonder batman made so much money. 2008 really was a crapulous year for the movies. I liked Wall-E better though.

Despite being an aronofsky fan, 2008 was also the year he fooled the world into thinking a drab afterschool special about a wrestler was somehow a searing work of art.

Posted by: idleprimate at February 23, 2011 6:55 PM

Mostly minor quibbles (aren't they all), but a few major disagreements:

1998 - Okay, you liked The Big Lebowski WAY too much.

1988 - Same for Die Hard

1999 - And for Fight Club

2001 - Okay, I know you're not fond of Lord of the Rings, but that movie was at least 10x better than Moulin Rouge

2004 - The Aviator or Finding Neverland. Fuck Sideways. But yeah, Eternal Sunshine was the biggest fucking robbery.

2006 - I so want to disagree on this, because I love The Departed more than words can express. But Children of Men is an undisputed work of beauty. So, fair enough.

2008 - I've waffled back and forth on whether The Dark Knight or Milk is the better movie, but I at least appreciate that you acknowledge it as the best of that year's nominees

2009 - Such a tough call. I loved The Hurt Locker, but time has really done a lot to convince me that Inglorious Basterds is the best war movie of the last decade.

Posted by: ChristianH at February 23, 2011 6:55 PM

Oh, and you have Memento in the wrong year, according to box office mojo. It was nominated for awards in 2001.

Replace Amelie with Memento and Memento with Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon in 2000 and you're good.

Posted by: The Mutt at February 23, 2011 6:57 PM

Gosford Park > Amelie > Moulin Rouge > A Beautiful Mind

Glad you included Children of Men! That movie just gets better with age.

Posted by: Crankle at February 23, 2011 7:01 PM

Umm, for those of you who thought Brokeback was just another love story, within which the characters just happened to be gay... did you watch the film?

The characters' sexuality was effectively the antagonist of the story.

It's about fighting prejudice, and your own sense of worth, right and propriety, for something that you feel is right even if ultimately futile, and the sense of loss that accompanies such a battlefield.

Not to mention the beautiful cinematography and performances (which should not be individualy addressed in a Best Picture discussion).

Re-watch the thing.

Trust me.

Posted by: Peter G at February 23, 2011 7:07 PM

i wanna marry fargo, frances mcdormand, william h. macy, the coen brothers, steve buscemi, and anyone else who had anything to do with that movie

Posted by: the chaplain at February 23, 2011 7:26 PM


best nominee " lost in translation "? what a snorefest that movie
was ... a cure for amnesia... the oscar that went to sofia (sp?) is
a tribute to the nepotism that permeates hollywood.

the worst winners were " chicago ", " forrest gump " and " million
dollar baby ". the biggest crime was the latter beating " sideways ".

morganew had it exactly right. people will be watching
' shawshank redemption " long after the 25 winners have been forgotten.

Posted by: snake at February 23, 2011 7:43 PM

The Hurt Locker was the best film of 2009? That can't be right. It just does not compute.

Now if only I could remember what else was released that year.

Posted by: csb at February 23, 2011 7:53 PM

First of all Paddy, any Oscar checklist has to involve the question:
"Did anyone go full retard?"

And really is it a surprise that period pieces and costume dramas are rewarded all out of proportion to their level of quality? After all, the Oscar voters all watch movies in their climate controlled hyberbaric chamber where the evil sun can never touch their skin, and they can dream of times and loves long gone. They dress up in starched whites and procure peti-fours from the local chemist before toddling into a well appointed theatre de arts to perview the latest flickering wonder of the modern age.

Also they like costumed crap.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at February 23, 2011 7:54 PM

^ votes mrcreosote for eloquent eloquence

Posted by: idleprimate at February 23, 2011 8:14 PM

sars... the point of the movie wasn't "they're gay, so what" as in.. "its okay to be gay and in love".. the point of the movie was that they took a typical love story thats been seen a million times, and convinced two popular male celebs to be in it, knowing that it would be divisive simply because they were gay in the film.

I really don't think that the movie was envisioned that way by Ang Lee (and I'm just basing this on his previous work) or done as spectacle, but maybe I'm less cynical of it. I didn't think it was boring at all and it definitely stirred up genuine emotion in me. And I think the story is not the same ol' same ol', and it's interesting enough without whatever controversy it brought in Hollywood especially if you think that it was a book prior to being a movie. No, that's not proof enough that it's a good movie, but I believe the book/story, which lacked the "popular male celebs" and the spectacle they bring, was well-regarded and hints that the story is compelling enough to stand on its own.

Posted by: sars at February 23, 2011 8:18 PM

"What the hell happens in the end of Brokeback Mountain that supposedly makes it such a great film? Because I made it through about 2/3 of it before I simply couldn't take the boredom anymore and turned it off. There was absolutely nothing happening in that movie. Oh, they were gay? So what? That doesn't make it an interesting story."
---

Thank you!!!And the biggest problem with the film? They two leads have zero chemistry and their "love scenes" sucked. It was such a safe cop out that it ruins the story. I don't give a crap how "daring" their roles were when people like Daniel Day Louis, Leo Decaprio and Colin Farrell busted slop in a much more passionate and believable fashion in true LGBT love stories. Heck Making Love in 82 staring Michael Otkean and Harry Hamlin had more chemistry, romance and lust in it a good couple decades before. And people mock voters for voting for the "race movie" instead of the "gay movie" when both films were uninspiring...

signed the gay black poster.

Posted by: sosgemini at February 23, 2011 9:09 PM

Great picks, DR. My only real quibble is Basterds over Hurt Locker but both are great movies.

Moulin Rouge was gorgeous, unique, heartbreaking, glimmering fantastic! No Country was the best film of the last ten years, at least. Brokeback Mountain was one of the most devastating love stories I've ever seen. But hey, I suppose you're all entitled to your opinions*. Some people don't find Monica Bellucci attractive so apparently there are people out there who are seeing the world quite differently than I am.

*Though honestly, that kind of pisses me off.

Posted by: becks at February 23, 2011 9:12 PM

actually, Moulin Rouge was Spectacular, Spectacular, no words in the vernacular can describe. . .

Posted by: idleprimate at February 23, 2011 9:24 PM

Thanks, idleprimate. You could tell I was searching my vernacular for that one, couldn't you?

Posted by: becks at February 23, 2011 10:14 PM

And the biggest problem with the film? They two leads have zero chemistry and their "love scenes" sucked.
Posted by: sosgemini at February 23, 2011 9:09 PM

Maybe it's because my blood pressure is through the roof (my stress level is somewhere near 100% right now), but this is one of the most infuriating comments I've ever read in my fucking life. I've never, in any film starring any actors, seen stronger romantic chemistry than I saw between those two. And I'm a fucking sap for tragic love stories. That kissing scene when they reunite in the parking lot? The single most passionate kiss in the history of film. They threw themselves head first into those roles and that relationship. I get thinking the movie is dull, I get thinking that not much happens (it does). But if you don't think those two had romantic chemistry you 1) Have no idea what love looks like and 2) Are fucking wrong.

Good night.

Posted by: ChristianH at February 23, 2011 11:06 PM

I know it goes back a really looong way before any of the movies mentioned here, but this seems like as good a place as any to point out the vote that still makes me seethiest: in 1969 Oliver beat out The Lion in Winter for Best Picture. Before I was born, but the memory still rankles.

Also, I stand with the Shawshank people.

Posted by: Young_Grandma_Ben at February 23, 2011 11:44 PM

Yeah, we will never agree on anything when it comes to what you consider "Best" and what I consider "Best". And that's OK.

Except when it comes to Lost in Translation, because you're just so WRONG on that one. *shakes head*

Posted by: figgy at February 23, 2011 11:55 PM

You had me right up to 2009. The Hurt Locker will be just another war movie a decade from now. Inglourious Basterds will still be dazzling people.
Posted by: The Mutt at February 23, 2011 6:45 PM

Quoted for truth. I was prepared to love The Hurt Locker, and felt very disappointed.

Posted by: Lexie at February 23, 2011 11:58 PM

"ChristianH"--Tis okay, it's not like I didn't site a couple other films where I felt the gay male characters did execute more passion or anything. Me thinks a lot of people fell in love with the supposed "historic" nature of the film, completely ignoring the true history of LGBT films. It was not the first nor was it the best. Yet, people rushed the film and the romanticist since of history kind of fooled the heart and the mind. Kind of like what The King's Speech is doing now for the underdog. Kind of like what Crash did when it came to race relations. Just saying...

Posted by: sosgemini at February 23, 2011 11:59 PM

Full Metal Jacket is better than The Last Emperor?! No no no.

And the Academy isn't trying to judge what movies will matter in the future. It SHOULD judge what matters NOW (though to be fair, I think they do a pretty shitty job).

Posted by: Zeff at February 24, 2011 12:31 AM

Amen Zeff!! That's why I don't hate the Academy for voting Crash over BM. Or for the overrated Hurt Locker winning or for Animal Kingdom (the best film of the year IMHO) didn't even get a BP nod this year. Oh well.

Posted by: sosgemini at February 24, 2011 1:02 AM

1989

Best Movie: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Do the Right Thing came out in 1989.

I don't know if you forgot that, and I've never seen The Last Crusade, but even if it came with a free blowjob, it wouldn't be better than Do the Right Thing.

Posted by: Devil Child at February 24, 2011 1:30 AM

"Full Metal Jacket" is half a great movie.

You and I agree on "Best Movie" enough that I question my taste in mvoies.

Posted by: , at February 24, 2011 1:36 AM

*--Or movies.

Posted by: , at February 24, 2011 1:37 AM

Now that I've seen it, I have to say District 9 was the best film of 2009. The Hurt Locker was mediocre. And I really, really liked Inglourious Basterds

Having looked up the nominees for 1991 The Silence of the Lambs deservedly won, but I still don't think it was worthy of the #1 position on the other list. Other than that I'm surprised by how much I generally agree with this list.

Posted by: Uda at February 24, 2011 4:45 AM

You have 1999 so bass ackwards but dammit if you didn't nail 2005 and 2008.

Posted by: L-Za at February 24, 2011 5:12 AM

I agree with most of this, but Children of Men better than The Departed? I don't see it.

Posted by: camytaru at February 24, 2011 6:52 AM

Crash, The King's Speech and Brokeback Mountain have absolutely nothing in common. Do you just like typing?

Posted by: becks at February 24, 2011 7:05 AM

Also, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?

How old are you? You must have been 12 or 13 when that movie came out to have fond memories of it. that movie was horrible. Bad script, bad acting, bad everything. It was a joke. I can't even imagine it being in any kind of discussion of "good" films. there was nothing redeeming in it except for the fact that it was not as bad as the Crystal Skull.

Posted by: kerminy at February 24, 2011 8:13 AM

And, Brokeback Mountain. Say what you want about performances or cinemtography. The movie was boring. And boring should not win awards.

Posted by: kerminy at February 24, 2011 8:14 AM

Crash, The King's Speech and Brokeback Mountain have absolutely nothing in common. Do you just like typing?

Posted by: becks at February 24, 2011 7:05 AM

Well, crash and Brokeback do what "Oscar" voters like to reward - movies that allegedly tackle important social issues. I agree that the King's Speech does not fit in with the other two.

Posted by: kerminy at February 24, 2011 8:16 AM

I'll say it and I'll say it proud: I hate Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I hate it. Jim Carrey ruins everything good about that film with his inability to turn off the mugging face reactions to every event on screen. By the time the rubber antics are appropriate (the childhood flashback under the table), the performance is tired. Any other actor would have done a better job because they would have the good sense not to approach that intelligent, well-crafted screenplay like it's Ace Venutura: When Memories Strike.

The man can act, too. This was just a desperate performance (as desperate as Winslet playing an illiterate Nazi to get her Oscar a few years later).

Posted by: Robert at February 24, 2011 8:23 AM

Gladiator and LA Confidential ARE two of the best movies ever made. Add Master and Commander to that.

OK, you got me, ANYTHING with Russell Crowe should be nominated every year, along with Russell Crowe as Best Actor EVERY YEAR!!!

Got that out of my system.

Shawshank was a perfect movie.

Lost in Translation was a snoozefest and I gave it 45 minutes I'll never get back.In fact all of Sophia Coppola's movies are boring. I'd hate to go out on a pub crawl with her.

Die Hard was a great action flick, but best movie?

Titanic? Really? Over LA Confidential? What a piece of crap.

The Departed was the worst movie Scorcese ever did and he should have won for Raging Bull

The Fellowship of the Ring was the best of the LOTR's. Smaller movie within an epic. Some of the shots were amazing. Best story. Character development. The other two seemed to be a series of battles, one after another

The Pianist, Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Memento...all movies I would have been proud to call the best in any given year

Posted by: jan at February 24, 2011 10:46 AM

csb, It doesn't compute because the best movie of 2009 was 500 Days of Summer

Posted by: Dath Darko at February 24, 2011 10:48 AM

jan

If Die Hard is the best action movie ever (and it certainly belongs in the discussion), is universally beloved, and created its own sub genre, then why not Best Picture? It's a better example of an action picture than Million Dollar Baby is a of a boxing movie or The Hurt Locker is of a war movie.

Posted by: ed newman at February 24, 2011 11:38 AM

I stand with coked up, one-sleeved Kim Basinger in being appalled that Do the Right Thing wasn't nominated.

Hoop Dreams didn't win
Boyz in the Hood kinda was nominated - writing/directing not BP- but didn't win.
Years and years later Crash won.

ARRRGHHH!

Posted by: bananapanda at February 24, 2011 1:37 PM

Unforgiven is a damned fine movie.

Scorsese's Oscar for the Departed was actually for Goodfellas. The Departed is good, but damn Goodfellas is better.

I hate almost all of American Beauty. Fight Club should have won.

Posted by: Melody at February 24, 2011 1:37 PM

Thank you, Robert. Just... thank you.

I would post my comments vis a vis all of this shit, but no one needs to read stuff that everyone else has said.

Except... The fact that Oliver beat The Lion in Winter is all anyone ever needs to know when wondering if the Oscars mean anything.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at February 24, 2011 2:45 PM

I really enjoyed Titanic. I was only a child!

Posted by: JDJ at February 24, 2011 3:03 PM

Every time i think about Shakespeare In Love winning over Saving Private Ryan I always get into a rage because Saving Private Ryan was fucking EPIC & clearly the best movie of 1998 while Shakespeare was just a bore, Gwyneth Paltrow was a bore & it's not even a remembered movie at all.

And don't even get me started on Dances With Wolves winning over the masterpiece that is Goodfellas.

Posted by: Holly at February 24, 2011 7:06 PM

@BarbadoSlim: Ugh. Unforgiven was as boring as a dog's ass.

Posted by: Kobie at February 24, 2011 8:39 PM

Late to the party, but Oldboy sucks. It was not profound, it just didn't work. I watched it with an open mind, and still can't figure out the acclaim.

Posted by: e at February 25, 2011 1:40 AM

I was so enraged when "Dances with Wolves" beat out "Goodfellas" I vowed never to watch the Oscars again.

And the year I decided to watch again "Shaksepare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan"! The acrynim "WTF" was created because of this decision.

Posted by: M Slade at February 26, 2011 9:18 PM

ee. Gotta love that you started the list with one of Dame Streep's best films. I'll grant you most of the list, but do you really think "only a minority would’ve selected" Out of Friggin' Africa over Back to the Future? Say what you will about entertainment value (and BthF was totes my favorite movie when I was 8), but I'm going to go out on a limb and say OoA was a better *film* in almost every sense. Maybe you should watch it again? "I had a fahrm in Ahfrica.."

Posted by: wedding dress at March 18, 2011 2:28 AM

Every time i think about Shakespeare In Love winning over Saving Private Ryan I always get into a rage because Saving Private Ryan was fucking EPIC & clearly the best movie of 1998 while Shakespeare was just a bore, Gwyneth Paltrow was a bore & it's not even a remembered movie at all.
And don't even get me started on Dances With Wolves winning over the masterpiece that is Goodfellas.

Posted by: cosplay costumes at April 1, 2011 5:24 AM