MARVEL / LIVEBLOGGING THE 90s / CELEBRITY FACTS / MINDHOLE BLOWERS / NETFLIX



How Many Times Have the Oscars Gotten Best Picture Wrong in the Last 20 Years?

By Dustin Rowles | Seriously Random Lists | January 29, 2014 | Comments ()


t1-1510.jpg

It is in no way bold or controversial to suggest that the Academy of Motions Pictures rarely manages to properly award the best movie of each year the Best Picture prize. Most of us understand that once a movie meets a certain threshold of quality, or tackles a certain subject, or features particular actors, the rest mostly falls into the hands of the PR people tasked with promoting the Oscar campaigns. It’s part of the reason why Daniel Carlson argues that awards don’t matter, and while I agree with most of that, I still believe that the awards process itself is great for providing exposure to underseen movies of a certain quality.

But to understand how deeply a sham the Oscars really are, looking at the Oscar race in one year hardly provides the full picture. With a sample of one, you can chalk anything up to an aberration. But if you examine the Best Picture winners from the last 20 years, a pattern emerges, and it’s difficult to argue that The Academy truly awards the highest achievement in filmmaking.

Here are the winners from the last 20 years, and the film (or films) I personally thought should’ve won. I disagreed with the Academy 19 out of the 20 years, and I guarantee that almost every one of you will disagree with at least 15 of the Academy’s choices, even if you also disagree with my own.

1994

Winner: Forrest Gump

Should’ve Won: Pulp Fiction

1995

Winner: Braveheart

Should’ve Won: The Usual Suspects or Toy Story (neither of which were nominated)

1996

Winner: The English Patient

Should’ve Won: Fargo (or Sling Blade or Trainspotting or anything except The English Patient)

1997

Winner: Titanic

Should’ve Won: L.A. Confidential (Good Will Hunting and Jackie Brown were also better choices)

1998

Winner: Shakespeare in Love

Should’ve Won: I would’ve given it to Out of Sight, but would’ve been content with Rushmore or Saving Private Ryan, as well.

1999

Winner: American Beauty

Should’ve Won: American Beauty was a great movie, but there were so many that were better that year, including Toy Story 2, Iron Giant, Being John Malkovich, Three Kings, Galaxy Quest, The Sixth Sense Magnolia, Office Space, or the movie I’d have given the Oscar, Fight Club

2000

Winner: Gladiator

Should’ve Won: You Can Count On Me, Memento, Traffic or Almost Famous (only Traffic was nominated)

2001

Winner: A Beautiful Mind

Should’ve Won: Amelia or Billy Elliot, or even two of the other nominees, Moulin Rouge or In the Bedroom. (It was a bad year for movies, admittedly)

2002

Winner: Chicago

Should’ve Won: Another bad year for movies, but About a Boy fared better with critics, and Adaptation, About Schmidt, or even Monsoon Wedding would’ve made better choices.

2003

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

Should’ve Won: In America, hands down (wasn’t even nominated). Lost in Translation and Finding Nemo were also better.

2004

Winner: Million Dollar Baby

Should’ve Won: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

2005

Winner: Crash

Should’ve Won: Brokeback Mountain, and it shouldn’t have been a contest.

2006

Winner: The Departed

Should’ve Won: Children of Men. I actually didn’t hate the choice of winner, although in what was another weak movie year, I might have also gone with Pan’s Labyrinth or Half Nelson

2007

Winner: No Country for Old Men

Should’ve Won: Zodiac (but it’s a close call)

2008

Winner: Slumdog Millionaire

Should’ve won: The Dark Knight or In Bruges.

2009

Winner: The Hurt Locker

Should’ve Won: Inglorious Basterds (Up in the Air, or even non-Oscar type movies like (500) Days of Summer and District 9 would’ve been acceptable).

2010

Winner: The King’s Speech

Should’ve Won: Inception, although there were several other movies considerably better than The King’s Speech, including Black Swan, The Fighter, The Social Network, True Grit, and Winter’s Bone, all of which were nominated.

2011

Winner: The Artist

Should’ve Won: Another overall terrible year for movies overall, but Drive, Moneyball, 50/50 and even the comedy Bridesmaids would’ve been better choices.

2012

Winner: Argo

Should’ve Won: It’s hard to make an argument against Argo, but Django Unchained andBeasts of Southern Wild might have been better. I think I’d have still gone with Argo.

2013

Winner: Not Determined

Should’ve Won: Short Term 12 (not nominated)



Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Because every time you do an angel does the Paul Rudd dance

Around the Web


PSA For White People: Stop Using '12 Years A Slave' To Explain How You "Get It" | The Photoshop Monsters Make Sarah Silverman Their B*tch In 'A Million Ways to Die in the West' Posters





Comments Are Welcome, Jerks Will Be Banned


  • The_Movie_Nerd

    I was directed to this website by a link posted in a film critic's article on Examiner.com and I gotta say that this website is pretty cool.
    However, as it pertains to this list:
    '94 - Pulp Fiction OR The Shawshank Redemption should've won
    '95-'98 were all bad choices
    American Beauty was definitely the best film of '99 as were A Beautiful Mind in 01, The Departed in 06, and No Country for Old men in 07. The rest are up for debate.
    Your one big whiff...'04, Chicago DEFINITELY should not have won, but if I'm replacing it, I have to say The Aviator was the best flick that ear. Eternal Sunshine was way too convoluted and artsy for me. I liked it, but not nearly as much as you apparently. Besides that, great stuff.

  • Sassy Pikachu

    I absolutely adore the movie "The Departed", but it still bothers me how much it ripped off from the Hong Kong original. And here I thought for the longest time it was an original idea. Disappointing. Still amazing movie though.

  • Elizabeth Rose

    While 2001 may have not been the best year for movies, it wasn't all bad. Mulholland Drive came out in 2001!

  • Littlejon2001

    Rarely has the Academy Awards gotten it COMPLETELY wrong. When it comes to what people believe is the best movie of the year, it's completely subjective. You can't be objective about what you felt was the best movie because different themes effect different people who are at different times in their life.

    That being said, The Dark Knight not even being nominated in 2008 was a complete travesty.

  • Nick Ramsay

    Your wrongness hurts my head. The only oscar in recent history I disagree with is Argo (shameless one-sided US propaganda, but that's a different story) which should have gone to Zero Dark Thirty.

    As for Bridesmaids? Out of Sight? You shouldn't even be allowed to write.

  • JCRegister

    No Country for Old Men deserved all the Oscars.

  • kirbyjay

    LA Confidential should have won the best movie of the decade.
    Titanic.....blechhh

  • Guest

    Jackie Brown should have won over Titanic? C'mon man.

  • Mer Mullins Brumfield

    I usually agree with everything you say, but saying American Beauty was a rob I just can't abide...especially from Galaxy Quest, or the first in a line of "oh shit, what I thought was going on the whole movie wasn't actually going on," (a.k.a. M. Night's first movie), or TOY STORY 2?!?!??

    Man, fighting words. But pretty accurate on everything else.

  • Mer Mullins Brumfield

    Also, I don't want to live in a world where Inception is considered better than Black Swan.

  • JimJefferson

    Bridesmaids are you serious!? You've got some terrible picks besides that one too.

  • psemophile

    Inception?
    Really?

  • Nadiney

    Some of these I agree with without even thinking about it. But The Hurt Locker, for example, was a fucking excellent movie and rightfully took home the award.
    But no, yeah, otherwise, it's all bullshit. It really is. The films that won paint a very specific picture about what kind of film wins.
    Nothing too challenging. Something that made people cry but didn't make people think too hard about the meaning beyond what was on the screen. Movies that make too much of a comment about the state of things, but appear to. But when you examine it, don't say anything.
    If your film made someone change the way they live their life or become more politically fuelled or made someone go and join a protest they hadn't before, you'll get nominated, but you wont win. 12 Years A Slave SHOULD but wont win. Because it makes people want to change the world and the Academy is afraid to endorse any film that might be polarising.
    Argo vs Beasts of the Southern Wild as an example, it's no contest. Argo was a great film, but Beasts Of The Southern Wild was another one that is fucking excellent. It challenges you, it makes you think. It didn't win. Argo tells a simple story with a happy ending. It's well acted, visually nice to look at, but Oscar worthy? Not even close.
    But I think you could/should do a similar list for people winning Oscars. This year for example, J-Law is up for one but she's not that good in American Hustle. She's not bad by any stretch, she's fucking great in fact. But not Oscar great.

  • devilgod

    A lot of the "Should’ve Won" are just some of the most awful movies made. Your taste leaves a lot to wish for.

  • JK

    I think the Hurt Locker is a fantastic movie. It's weird that it had such universal acclaim when it came out but people only seem to mention in negatively now. Is it just because it's grim?

  • Nick

    Office Space... is better than American Beauty? Just because you make like that more doesn't even begin to resemble truth. Agree with 99% of the others though

  • In Bruges is fantastic. I did a complete 180 on Colin Farrell because of it. And it led to me watching the very entertaining Seven Psychopaths. But The Dark Knight is close to perfect for me.

  • Debra Kessing

    isnt Seven Psychopaths fun :) Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walkin, Woody Harrelson --not a bad cast there (she says in the understatement of the year)

  • Az

    OMG a million times YES to Eternal Sunshine. Jim Carrey was robbed as well.

  • googergieger

    Yeah. Foreign movies rock.

  • googergieger

    Also, Babe. BAAAAAAAAAAABE.

  • Did you let your six-year-old write this, too?
    /BOOM ROASTED

    Seriously, I think the Academy only genuinely screwed up five times in the last 20 years:

    - Shakespeare over Saving Private Ryan
    - King's Speech over Social Network
    - Crash over Brokeback
    - English Patient over Fargo
    - Chicago over The Two Towers

    The rest sort of come down to preference as you can make a strong case for the remaining winners. Shit, LA Confidential is my all-time favorite movie and I still don't have a problem with Titanic winning that year. And including movies that weren't even nominated seems unfair, too. CHEATER!

  • Brady

    I will always be bitter about The King's Speech over The Social Network. Always.

  • Strand

    As much as I'd agree that Tarantino and the Coen brothers need more representation, I still love the shit out of a few winners (American Beauty especially). Oh, and Sack Lunch over The English Patient any day of the week.

  • becks2point0

    I can't remember if they shrunk the people down or if it was just a really big sack.

  • Mizghetti

    I disagree with the so called "terrible years for movies". 2011 for instance was a very strong year for films. A Separation, Drive, Intouchables, Take Shelter, Once Upon A Time In Anatolia, Warrior, Midnight In Paris, Tyrannosaur, The Tree of Life, The Raid, Shame and We Need to Talk About Kevin are just a few of the many great films released that year.

  • em.me

    Oh man, Tyrannosaur was an excellent movie but I never ever want to watch it again.

  • Protoguy

    Children of Men? Zodiac? The Dark Knight? Moulon Rouge?

    "1999

    Winner: American Beauty

    Should’ve Won: American Beauty was a great movie, but there were so many that were better that year, including Toy Story 2, Iron Giant, Being John Malkovich, Three Kings, Galaxy Quest, The Sixth Sense Magnolia, Office Space, or the movie I’d have given the Oscar, Fight Club"

    Seriously, if you want to pick likely contenders, maybe pick likely contenders. Magnolia? Iron Giant? I mean, I like some of those too, but c'mon.

  • Debra Kessing

    Since this is so subjective a topic, I wasn't going to comment. I got sucked in down there somewhere to defending one of my favourite performances of all time, so I will mention my strongest reactions (TRYING to be succinct, never succeeded before - ha)
    2004 - best year ever - impossible to seperate 2 of my lifetime top 10 films Million Dollar Baby & Eternal Sunshine.
    Never seen any of '96's films, don't particularly want to.
    '99 - American Beauty & Fight Club - tied for the winner :D
    Lord of the Rings trilogy is also on my top 10 ever list, but Lost in Translation closest 2nd ever.
    Crash AND BB Mtn .. meh
    2006 - other best year. Departed is on my list but COM & Pan's Labyrinth - so very close.
    2008 - IN BRUGES !!!
    2010 - King's Speech deserved to win IMO but Inception - another close call
    2013 - SHORT TERM 12 !!!

  • Most of the Oscar films catch onto a generic zeitgeist while most of Dustin's picks or people-on-the-internet zeitgeist. Except American Beauty. That was just pseudo-intellectual-but-really-just-as-douchey-as-a-guy-filming-plastic-bags-is zeitgeist.

  • henrikoez

    There Will Be BLOOD!

  • RMH

    The thing is, even when websites like Awards Daily, which boasts writers and a commentariat that repeatedly complain about the Oscars 'getting it wrong', run a simulated Oscar ballot, the results are almost identical to what AMPAS chooses. For example, you say 'Short Term 12' should have won, but the people who saw/loved that movie probably overlap with those who think 'Inside Llewyn Davis', 'Before Midnight', 'Frances Ha', 'The Spectacular Now' etc was the best movie of the year. When all those people vote on their top five the most broadly palatable, say, 'Gravity' or 'American Hustle', tends to win.

  • Caleb K

    So in other words your favorite directors are Christoper Nolan and Quentin Tarantino.

  • AvaLehra

    2006
    Should’ve Won: Children of Men.

    ABSOLUTELY. I am still bitter about that one.

  • Jim Foster

    So the category is Best Picture. That means that it has to be the best over all picture when you line up all the different aspects that make up a film. So the best picture has to be one that may not be the best at any one thing (story, costume design, effects and sound) but is able to combine all the elements better then any other film that year. So you may enjoy the story and acting alot more from one film but if the sound track and set design so it doesn't win but then another movie that looks great, has decent actors and a beautiful soundtrack but has a story that lacks conviction or intrigue may be an overall better picture because it out shines in more categories. It's more mathematical then it is emotional and your choices appear to be emotional choices since in many cases you are indecisive about what might have been the better movie.

  • Back in 1999, I read on the dearly departed Fametracker.com about the phenomenon they called the "Olivia De Havilland factor" when it comes to Oscar outcomes. The crux of it is that most academy voters are representative of Olivia De Havilland, in her 70s or 80s (or 90s now) watching screeners in her Paris apartment with ballot in hand, which means any movie that is edgy, seemingly convoluted or could be considered vulgar by someone who lived through the Depression just wasn't going to win. It's held true over the years, which is why movies about the film industry, movies that are a slice of Hollywood's golden era and films about the Holocaust do better with Oscar time. Adding Olivia to the year by year swings between good, commercially successful movies and classic Oscar drama type films, the the voting trends are pretty predictable.

  • Professor Sara

    Ah, Fametracker. Gone but not forgotten. Harrison Ford, you will always be my sun.

  • tippoo1782
  • AudioSuede

    People talk a lot about 2008 and The Dark Knight getting robbed, but not enough people talk about just how great Milk was. If anything should have won over Slumdog that year, I would have preferred Milk.

  • Pitry

    Yeah, I seem to disagree with you as often as I do with the Oscars. Also. It's... hard to make an argument against Argo? Really? In the year of Moonrise Kingdom, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Silver Linings Playbook, Amour, and so many more movies that weren't even nominated, and it's hard to make an argument against *Argo*?

    The nice thing this year is that whichever one of the three movies takes it, it's a good choice.

    The nice thing about this post is to show people why the idea of 'best' in movies is ridiculous.

  • AudioSuede

    I actually really liked Argo. I thought it was a tense, gripping thriller that told a good story and had a good balance of light and dark moments. It wasn't my favorite nominee of last year (I still think the Academy completely chickened out by not giving Zero Dark Thirty any awards), but I preferred it to several of the other choices.

  • manting

    The only reason Argo won is because the movie glorifies the film industry. It was a masturbatory Oscar. I dissagre with a slew of Dustin's choices. Why so many kids movies? Iron Giant is great but Toy Story 2?!

  • thatsmrsnyder

    Woa woa woa hold up. I was with you for a while, even though I think Gladiator is awesome. But... Zodiac over No Country for Old Men?

    Are you insane?

  • manting

    No Country for Old Men was the best film of the decade. I did enjoy Zodiac, even though its pace is slow and plodding; it does build some tension.

  • $14122660

    No Country for Old Men was 2nd best film of the decade. There Will be Blood should have one.

  • AudioSuede

    Zodiac is probably the best "true crime" movie ever. It's impeccably well made. But I have to say, I think No Country is a better and more impactful movie overall.

  • Emm82

    I still think Chicago was the best in it's year. I even forgive the fact that when I watch it now it reminds me of the dude masturbating behind me in the cinema. That takes some doing, I can tell you.

  • AudioSuede

    I mean, I adore Children of Men, but The Departed is Scorsese's best movie, and I'm including Goodfellas.

  • Emm82

    Yep. Children of Men may have been better presented, but The Departed is still a superior film.

  • manting

    but it's a remake, should that count? I did love the dialogue though. http://www.anyclip.com/movies/...

  • Emm82

    It's a remake of Infernal Affairs isn't it? It's still superior to Children of Men, which is a cracking film but watching Clive Owen for too long is like watching a black hole of charm, especially when stood next to Michael Caine.

  • AudioSuede

    It's so different from the original, though, and completely immerses itself in the world of Boston crime and police cultures. It's a movie that couldn't have been made at any other time and place, and if you ask me it far exceeded its source material.

  • Fabius_Maximus

    No, it shouldn't.

  • Janine

    I think Pajiba might have a crush on Ben Affleck.

  • Maddy

    I actually loved The King's Speech, but then I'm always going to love pretty much anything with both Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush.

  • Debra Kessing

    I wish I could upvote your comment more than once

  • HowlingFantods

    In America is suuuuper overrated. Seriously, the fact that so many otherwise sensible critic types fell for that movie (SPOILERS FOR A BAD MOVIE) where the magical aids negro's death makes the white guy able to feeeeel again is just amazing. Lost in Translation is pretty and atmospheric schlock about a poor little rich girl having poor little rich girl problems. And Zodiac is great but No Country and There Will Be Blood are at least as good if not better.

    I agree with Eternal Sunshine, though. Still my favorite movie of the past decade.

  • StellaOliver

    Amen to the magical negro.

  • Maddy

    I only just watched Short Term 12. I can't believe Brie Larson at least didn't get a nomination. It's hard to make a movie like that and have it not be sickly sweet or earnest, but it managed it.

  • jptaylorsg

    2001: "Amelie," which was a delightful movie with Audrey Tautou and is infinitely rewatchable, maybe should have won. "Amelia," which you typed, was an overblown Oscar-bait backfire starring the fading Hilary Swank in 2009. And no year that includes "Amelie" is a bad year for movies. Also, "Three Kings" FTW!

  • Berry

    Amelie is very rewatchable, but nothing will beat the experience of seeing it for the first time in theater with my friend who has a very infectious laugh. That laugh made the garden gnome's first holiday snapshot even more amazing than it otherwise would have been.

  • BAM

    Homer.

  • Scottieboy

    So the only one you agree with is the latest winner?

    Come back in five years and we'll talk again.

  • johfamer

    the shawshank redemption >> pulp fiction >> forrest gump

  • AudioSuede

    You don't need two brackets for what you're trying to say.

  • johfamer

    i think i do, cuz >> is better than >

  • AudioSuede

    Right now, I read it as "Shawshank led to Pulp Fiction which led to Forrest Gump."

  • chanohack

    > means "is greater than."
    >> means "is much greater than."
    >>> means "is much MUCH greater than."

    So does this mean people misunderstood my comment yesterday as "Shirtless Wolverine leads to Shirtful Wolverine"? Because I agree that doesn't make sense. Sigh, MATH, people.

  • BendinIntheWind

    This whole list is troll-bait.

  • idiosynchronic

    And . . . ?

    (Your avatar is smashing, by the way.)

  • Ryan Ambrose

    I never understood the "it was a weak year for movies" train of thought.

    Every year is a great year for cinema if it releases at least one outstanding picture.

  • ZbornakSyndrome

    Was I the only one that genuinely loved The Artist? Sigh, fine...I'll mime my way out...

  • AudioSuede

    I actually really enjoyed it, but I don't think it should have won Best Picture. Same with The King's Speech and Slumdog Millionaire. Cute, but forgettable and not indicative of the state of film.

  • Kenny G.

    2007: THERE WILL BE BLOOD (Hands down)

  • AudioSuede

    I wouldn't say "hands down" because they're both great in their own right. 2007 was packed with great nominees. It's the only year where I actively collected all the Best Picture nominees on DVD as soon as they came out because they were all so well done.

  • thatsmrsnyder

    There Will Be Blood was brilliant. But "hands down" a winner over No Country For Old Men it is decidedly not.

  • Debra Kessing

    I found them both boring *ducks*

  • chanohack

    Confession: I perpetually confuse There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men and until you brought this up I thought we were already talking about it.

  • Guest

    Reminds me of this Cracked Photoplasty: http://www.cracked.com/photopl...

  • pissants_doppelganger

    http://www.cracked.com/photopl...

    I still think of that one at least 3 times a year.

    And while we're on the subject of awards...how the FUCK did that entry not win that contest? It was the most clever, funniest, and truest one of the bunch.

    EDIT: Well, I can't link directly despite linking directly. It's the entry in the #2 position.

  • Amsterdamdave

    Whoops, I posted the first Cracked link, and then deleted the post when I saw that it didn't link directly to #2. Now it's still there but posted by 'Guest' Does that always happen with Discus?
    But yeah, the #2 one. Should've won the Plasty Oscar. So simple, so good.

  • Fruity Fonzie

    you're so hard to please, aren't you?

  • John W

    The only real disagreement I have with you is Lord of The Rings. To me that was the best picture that year.

    The problem you touched on is that so many deserving movies are not even nominated. God forbid that some British costume drama not be nominated.

  • Tinkerville

    The frustrating thing about this, at least for me, is it does nothing but encourage the "Oscar baity" films every year. Now we get the overblown melodramatic character pieces that are clearly only made to win awards, instead of rewarding movies that are actually interesting, fun, or innovative.

    I think the intense Oscar dramas used to be genuinely good, but now they've just become "here's an award movie, give us the Oscar."

  • AudioSuede

    I've always thought the term "Oscar bait" is inherently disingenuous. What defines "Oscar bait?" A movie that is made to win an Oscar? How would that be accomplished? By making a movie that's extremely well crafted, well acted, well written, emotionally resonant, and carefully edited? A lot of Best Picture winners are frustrating more because they're marketed and campaigned for over movies which are more experimental, independent, or artistically adventurous, but to say that the movies themselves are crafted so as to win awards is petty and silly.

    And this notion that Oscar dramas "used to be genuinely good" and that they're not anymore is nostalgic nonsense. That's like people who say they stopped making good music in the 60s. The lens with which you're viewing those classics tempers your opinion to favor them because you're aware of them as classic dramas, with a notion that those movies were great for their time periods, but there were plenty of people who didn't like Citizen Kane when it was released, and it's revisionist history to perpetuate the idea that movies were only good "back in the day."

    This year is a great example of a year when so many great movies failed to receive nominations, but at the same time there aren't any movies that were nominated for Best Picture which everyone would agree should be removed. 2013 was a great year for movies because there was a wide breadth of great choices that were great in their own ways and were received positively across different metrics. If Her doesn't deserve praise for being interesting, fun, and innovative, then I don't know what does, and it was nominated for several very deserving categories. And 12 Years A Slave is a melodramatic character piece, but I'd be hard-pressed to think of one that was better-made or better acted this year. It was incredibly moving, and even if historical dramas set around slavery don't seem particularly innovative, the way it was shot, directed, and performed was engrossing and incredibly emotional.

    If there's any reason to dislike the Academy's choices, and there often are many reasons, it should be based on their rules about campaigning, and the way that many trophies seem "bought" by the likes of the Weinsteins regardless of the film they're actually awarding. Does that make the nominees less good? Does the way the studios and producers and voters interact somehow lessen the quality of film as a whole? Does the goal to make a movie that is worthy of an award automatically disqualify a film from entering the pantheon of classic cinema? People make "Oscar bait" because they see the opportunity to make something great and they hope that people will recognize it. Sometimes it works, often it doesn't, but the goal is always to make good art, and that's a goal that should be celebrated, rather than derided.

  • Debra Kessing

    I fucking hated Her . just sayin'

  • manting

    Argo was clear "oscar bait." It is a movie that glorifies the industry that all the people who vote for the oscars work in.

  • Al Borland's Beard

    1989: Rain Man

    Should've won: Die Hard

  • Guest

    Die Hard was released in 1988.

    *Grave of the Fireflies or My Neighbor Totoro should have won that year.

  • Al Borland's Beard

    So was Rain Man. I think because the awards take place in March, they honor the previous year's movies.

  • Guest

    Doh. Still Fireflies or Totoro though.

    *1989 was a stacked year.

  • AvaLehra

    Before I even clicked the link, I was already saying to myself, "Shakespeare in Love" better be on this list. ANYTHING should have won but Shakespeare in Love -- but Rushmore in particular should have won.

  • manting

    Murray deserved the best supporting actor oscar.

  • Fireplace Girl

    Wow, I disagree about so many of these. I agree with the Academy on at least 8 of the above, and for the other ones only agree with you on 1997, 2000 and 2005. (Some of the years I haven't seen the winners or the others, so I have no opinion). Clearly, our views of movies are pretty disparate!

  • manting

    Gladiator was complete dreck, that suffered from terrible terrible writing. It dosnt even deserve to carry the jock of Ben Hur or Spartacus. I still cant believe it won.

  • Zirza

    "The Dark Knight or In Bruges"

    Sorry, no. Just In Bruges. The Dark Knight is a fine movie, but In Bruges had so much going for it. It was original, it was well-paced, well-shot, well-acted, the dialogue was amazing and it was both easily the funniest movie of the year and the most heartbreaking one. I'd say it's probably one of the best films of the decade.

    As for American Beauty; I agree with many other choices listed but it's a beter movie than half of the ones mentioned (it beats The Sixth Sense and Three Kings hands down, for example).

    And I fucking hated Black Swan.

  • Protoguy

    I didn't hate Black Swan, but I didn't love it, either.

  • manting

    3 kings sucked. I wouldnt cross the street to cram a cd in its mouth and then pour oil down it.

  • Emm82

    I fucking hated Black Swan too.

  • chanohack

    WHAT you hated Black Swan? I withdraw my upvote! (Totally with you on the rest.)

blog comments powered by Disqus



film / tv / lists / guides / box-office / news / love / celeb / video / think pieces / staff / TV Podcast / books / cbr




Trending


Follow Us



Related Posts




Viral Hits
Celebrity Facts

The Best TV & Movie Quotes

The Walking Dead

How I Met Your Mother

True Detective

Parks and Recreation

Cosmos

Hannibal

30 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Children

25 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Twins