Worst Movie to win best picture academy award.

[George McFly]

I have no idea

[Marty McFly]

Although I really enjoyed Gladiator, I was just really surprised last year. It was an excellent film, but I'm just not sure if it deserved Best Picture.

Don't even get me started on Titanic...

[Keith]

Shakespeare in Love by a LANDSLIDE in my opinion.

[SeanL]

Originally posted by Keith
Shakespeare in Love by a LANDSLIDE in my opinion.

I still can't believe that SPR lost to Shakespeare in Love.

[Disco Stu]

This could be such a long list, not even counting the movies that didn't deserve the award.

Forrest Gump
Dances With Wolves
Driving Miss Daisy
Rain Man
Out of Africa
Gandhi
The French Connection
Around the World in 80 Days

I haven't seen all of the films from the 30's so I can't really judge.

[Marty McFly]

The more I think about, the more I realize I've never actually agreed with any of the Academy's Best Picture choices.

[dvds'r'us]

Gladiator!!! Worst Movie Ever In My Opinion! I Couldn't stand the movie when I saw it at my friends house. It deserves to be thrown in the trash and burned! IMO.

[BeanBandit]

In recent memory, Titanic. Seems like the only criteria for a best picture winner if for it to be complete fluff and flash and be over two hours. Bah.

[Porkchop]

I'm of the opinion that no truly bad movie has ever won Best Picture. Some were less deserving than others (Shakespeare in Love was a very good movie, but not nearly as good as Private Ryan). But nothing BAD has ever won.

And I'm sorry, but both Titanic and Gladiator richly deserved that award.

[Lord Crumb]

I'm with BeanBandit. TITANIC sucked big Cameron balls!
What a melodramatic piece of garbage.

Gladiator indeed deserved best pic. It was a very moving picture. Beautifully shot with fantastic performances.

BTW-I haven't seen SHAKESPEAR IN LOVE, but I can't see it being a best pic...then again, it IS the Academy we're speaking of here.

[elwood731]

Well, the term Best Picture of the Year would mean quite simply, it was the best movie released that year. It doesn't necessarily have to have the best social message, or best acting, or best directing, or even the best script. As a whole, it has to be the BEST picture of the year. So, there are few I wouldn't agree with. I do think the Academy sometimes tries to pick something with a social message or a great acting performance, even if that is not the best film. Titanic was most certainly the best film the year it came out. Gladiator and Shakspeare in Love can be debated. I liked Gladiator at least, but not SIL, I prefer SPR.

[Damian]

Shakespear In Love deffinatly.

Didn't The English Patient win as well? UGH!

[Istagi]

I think this would be a really good soapbox thread.

moving there

[souledge4]

Originally posted by Porkchop
I'm of the opinion that no truly bad movie has ever won Best Picture. Some were less deserving than others (Shakespeare in Love was a very good movie, but not nearly as good as Private Ryan). But nothing BAD has ever won.

I agree here. Maybe another question to ask is, Which winners are the least deserving? I vote for Titanic (LA Confidential), Shakespeare in Love (Saving Private Ryan/Elizabeth), Forrest Gump (although I love Gump, Pulp Fiction/The Shawshank Redemption).

[SolidSnakeASS]

Platoon. :barf:

[Triple HHH]

I was looking at this flyer in the Columbia House mailer and it showed all the past Oscar Winners for Best Picture (73 at the time) and I noticed nearly every film had something in common. They were all mainstream, usually big budget, but still had something about them that made them memorable. There was Braveheart, The Sound of Music, Godfather I and II, and older ones like Hamlet, The Greatest Show on Earth (that circus movie), and Around the World in 80 Days. So I guess we will never see a smaller, independent, "niche" film win, judging by history. That's why films like The Thin Red Line, The Full Monty, Secrets and Lies, Chocolat will never win. Those are some "smaller" films that come to mind. They've all been nominated and shared the pleasure of being in the illustrious five for their respective years, but one could bet a million dollars they would never win, even if they do deserve to sometimes. Oh yeah, I also noticed all the best Picture winners had nice-looking posters. So to win, you have to have a killer poster as well.

And for Saving Private Ryan, I wonder if their was a sort of private "resentment" against him? Maybe they felt he had too much success in life and already one Oscars for Schindler's List? Who knows. But I felt he was snubbed, because no way do I find more merit in Shakespeare in Love over SPR.

[Travis Bickle]

Originally posted by Porkchop
I'm of the opinion that no truly bad movie has ever won Best Picture. Some were less deserving than others (Shakespeare in Love was a very good movie, but not nearly as good as Private Ryan). But nothing BAD has ever won.

I'm with Porkchop on this one. I've gone through and looked at some of the past best picture winners and, of the ones I'm familiar with, they all seem pretty decent. But I noticed that the Academy has included some pathetic nominations that, thankfully didn't win for best picture.

Check this out! Can you imagine the controversy if, in 1974, The Towering Inferno actually won best picture!? Beating out such classics like Chinatown, Lenny, The Conversation and The Godfather Part II (which actually won)!

[Taxi]

I think if you're going to answer this question, you at least owe it to us all to let us know which picture should have won (as some of you have done.)

I think hands down that Titanic is the least deserving of the Oscar BP winners, but it's even more of a shame when you consider that it's competition included L.A. Confidential and As Good As It Gets and The Full Monty, all of which are head and shoulders above that teeny bopper Leo luv fest.

[Rogue]

Well, I think it sucked when Places in the Heart won over E.T. The only thing that compares to that was when Shakepeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan.

[Templar]

You think that The Full Monty was more deserving of Best Picture than Titanic? I'm not fan of the latter (and quite a fan of the former) but I think that might be a little hyperbolic.

Plus there's a clear reference in The Full Monty to the "Arsenal off-side trap", an obvious reference to British Premeir League Soccer...which should automatically disqualify it in your book, Taxi

[Chunkblower]

Originally posted by dvds'r'us
Gladiator!!! Worst Movie Ever In My Opinion! I Couldn't stand the movie when I saw it at my friends house. It deserves to be thrown in the trash and burned! IMO.

Yeah. Hopefully something good will eventually win...... like, say Rollerball.

[Graham]

Shakspeare in Love, Titanic...this are the movies lately that have not made my cut as deserving a "Best Picture of The Year"

:rar:

[Triple HHH]

Originally posted by Rogue
Well, I think it sucked when Places in the Heart won over E.T. The only thing that compares to that was when Shakepeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan.

Rogue, actually Gandhi won that year over E.T. Here are the nominations/winners from that year. http://us.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/A...wards_USA/1983

Funny thing is, Richard Attenborough (Shadowlands, Chaplin) beat out Steven Spielberg for the Best Director Oscar. I wondered if there was a little jealousy there. But I guess not, since he cast Richard Attenborough as none other than John Hammond in Jurassic Park and Lost World. I guess no hard feelings on Spielberg's part.

[xiying]

I want to chime in here and say that in my estimation Saving Private Ryan was not a great film. I have no problem with Shakespeare in Love winning, and would have chosen Elizabeth over 'SPR' as well.

I feel 'SPR' had a brilliant opening and faded into typical Spielberg over-sentimentalization.

[Prancer]

Originally posted by xiying
I want to chime in here and say that in my estimation Saving Private Ryan was not a great film. I have no problem with Shakespeare in Love winning, and would have chosen Elizabeth over 'SPR' as well.

I feel 'SPR' had a brilliant opening and faded into typical Spielberg over-sentimentalization.

Agree 100%. Saw Shakespeare in Love twice and thought it was good but Elizabeth was clearly the better film.

[SolidSnakeASS]

posted by Triple HHH:
Rogue, actually Gandhi won that year over E.T. Here are the nominations/winners from that year. http://us.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/...Awards_USA/1983

Funny thing is, Richard Attenborough (Shadowlands, Chaplin) beat out Steven Spielberg for the Best Director Oscar. I wondered if there was a little jealousy there. But I guess not, since he cast Richard Attenborough as none other than John Hammond in Jurassic Park and Lost World. I guess no hard feelings on Spielberg's part.

Some how I can't see Speilberg caring about awards on that one. Not only did it make him so rich that he could fund his own company, it also gave him artistic freedom, and it was a film that people love and still do. No one really talks about Ghandi anymore... even though it may very well be a better film.

[Taxi]

Templar, I guess I was really just trying to show how much I despise Titanic.

[Triple HHH]

Originally posted by SolidSnakeASS


Some how I can't see Speilberg caring about awards on that one. Not only did it make him so rich that he could fund his own company, it also gave him artistic freedom, and it was a film that people love and still do. No one really talks about Ghandi anymore... even though it may very well be a better film.

True, because I remember around that tiime he was having hit atfer hit so he wasn't exactly hurting that's a good point. Plus E.T. was the number one box-office champ of all time that year.

But I read later on in his unofficial biography he became a little jealous in the later years after he was nominated for director many times and never got one. It was only until 1993 when he finally got Best Director for Schindler's and it was the "best drink of water in the longest drought of my life." I guess he wanted to finally be recognized by his peers and he got it.

[Chris in OC]

Originally posted by xiying
I want to chime in here and say that in my estimation Saving Private Ryan was not a great film. I have no problem with Shakespeare in Love winning, and would have chosen Elizabeth over 'SPR' as well.

I feel 'SPR' had a brilliant opening and faded into typical Spielberg over-sentimentalization.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way. Shakespeare in Love is a brilliant and dynamic film with a sharp writing, direction and acting, and of the films I've seen from that year, I think it's the best. (It's worth noting, BTW, that it was very much a "small" film despite its star power.)

Saving Private Ryan, on the other hand, fell far short of the mark. The opening sequence is incredible, but it's only 20 minutes of the film. The rest is old-hat combat formula, complete with corny dialogue and gross stereotypes, with extra gore and political correctness the only things identifying it as a 1990s film.

I thought Elizabeth was superior to SPR, but I found it uneven and a little lacking in focus. It also had the misfortune of coming out at about the same time as SIL. It was easy enough to keep the two stories separate, but the appearance of Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Feinnes in both films had a mild tendency to pull me back to reality during Elizabeth, which I saw after SIL.

[Rock's Girl]

Shakespeare in Love. My god was that movie crappy.