And about Chicago, is a great musical. The last great musical for the moment, better than the last moulin rouge. Gangs of new york was a great movie, but is based mainly in daniel day lewis performance and in the supporting actors and the artistic design. Di caprio and Diaz performances were too weak and the story was boring at times. Its a great movie, but have more flaws than Chicago.
I thought Forrest Gump was great.
But hell yeah, Julia Roberts. Bloody hell. She always plays a grinning Goomba in every movie she's in.
Renee Zellwegger is another one I don't care for. She has a wierd face and I think she hides orphans and dead bunny rabbits in those puffy cheeks of hers. Not to be trusted that one. And she sufferes from Julia Roberts syndrome too.
Titanic was good, but come on. Everyone watched it to see the boat sink in typical Cameron fashion. I know I was just pissed off over the fact she hogged that float all to herself and let her boyfriend die in ice cold water. Stupid film. He deliverred the sinking boat yes, but did he deliver Kate Winslet getting eaten by Great Whites at the end like everyone who saw that movie wanted? Hell no. Not worthy of an Oscar.
And Halle Berry just pisses me off. She made a good Storm and thats about it. She has about as much presence as Santa Claus in the summer (geddit? see what i did there? eh eh?).
I go with Smasandians comment, that 1994 was a huge year for movies. It's hard to choose between Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, and The Shawshank Redemption. I'd have to go with Pulp Fiction because its my all-time favorite and way to original.
Also in 1996, The English Patient won 9 oscars including best picture. Although I have never seen the movie actually, I don't know how it could get 9 oscars because a lot of people thought it was a waste of time. But was it any good because I want to see it?
Originally posted by cgtuna21
Also in 1996, The English Patient won 9 oscars including best picture. Although I have never seen the movie actually, I don't know how it could get 9 oscars because a lot of people thought it was a waste of time. But was it any good because I want to see it?
I'll tell you why. Every now and then the Academy tries to something "cute and trendy." Some of these tactics involve having a particular picture sweep through every single nominated award (ala Titanic and Return of the King) or lose every single nominated award (ala The Color Purple).
Let's just say the Academy's hip movement in 1996 was to initiate the commercialization of independent films.
Calm down, dude. It's all a matter opinion.
Just like an eight year old might think Garfield should have won Best Picture, a twenty-five year old might have thought Braveheart should have won Best Picture, and an eighty-three year old might have thought Shakespeare in Love should have won Best Picture. 😛
Originally posted by A4E
shakespeare in love deseved ten times more an oscar than saving private ryan!!! and chicago was also amazing!!
Originally posted by pr1983
not to stir shit... but your kidding right? 😉
Originally posted by A4E
- to stir shit - not I am not!!
Now where are the other four?