Ever watched the AA's, and gotten really pissed off because your flick didn't take the Oscar of all Oscars home? List and explain.
IMO.
- Saving Private Ryan Should have snatched the Best Picture in '99.
- 'The Green Mile' instead of 'American Beauty'? Although I was satisfied, I would have felt the same if TGM won. Same goes for 'The Sixth Sense'.
- I was satisfied with 'Gladiator'. But now that I look back, Requiem for a Dream was the more powerful film. But, Experimental films aren't picked up much in the AA.
1957: Paths of Glory: Too my surprise not even nominated, one of the best films ever made.
1964: Dr. Strangelove
1971: Clockwork Orange
1976: Taxi Driver: Mind boggling that the simple and generic story of Rocky beat out this unique and infinitely important film with a message and theme that will never grow dated.
1977: Star Wars
1980: Elephant Man
1990: Goodfellas
94: Shawshank Redemption: Though I love Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction, Shawshank is better then both of these films in ever conceivable way. An absolutely gorgeous story and beautiful film that will grow to be one of the greatest classics of all time.
97: As Good as it Gets or LA Confidential: Both are better then Titanic, by miles.
98: Life is Beautiful (This was the year Saving Private Ryan was nominated, btw).
2000: Any of the other nominees should have won instead of Gladiator: Traffic, CTHD, ect. Though, my favorite film of that year was Requiem for a Dream. Gladiator was the biggest mistake the Academy ever made, a very generic film, it was.
Are we putting all of the films that WERE nominated and didn't win? Because if we aren't then here's my list of movies that should of won in the following years:
1971: A Clockwork Orange
1986: BLUE VELVET (What the hell was the Academy thinking? It was a ****ing masterpiece.)
1994: PULP FICTION
1996: Trainspotting
1998: Rushmore
2000: Requiem for a Dream
2001: Donnie Darko
2002: Adaptation
2003: Lost in Translation
2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Wishful thinking, but wonderful choices. I'd agree with nearly everyone of those. Out of the years you choose, the toughest choice for me would be 1994; I love 'Pulp Fiction', but 'The Shawshank Redemption' is also cinematically supreme. 'Pulp Fiction' gets my appreciation of cool, but 'Shawshank' beats it on heart and soul. It's a tough choice, so I'll sit on this spiky fence.
Additional mention:
1990 should have been 'Goodfellas', 2001 should have been 'LOTR' ('A Beautiful Mind' is a pile of shit!), same goes for 2002 (this time regarding 'Chicago'), 1981 should have been 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', and that's about all I can think of.
__________________ Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
2005 - Brokeback Mountain
1994 - pulp fiction
1998- Life is Beautiful
1989- Born on the Fourth of July
2002 - all the Nominees could have won BUT Chicago
2005, "Brokeback Mountain". "Crash" was great, but I think there was a lot of social precautions taken with the voting. Whereas "the gay cowboy movie" probably should have won, they took the "social awareness" angle with "Crash" which preaches acceptance and repercussions of our wrong actions, which was the safe route.
A movie wins for best score, best screenplay, and best director, which is THE MOVIE MINUS THE ACTORS..and fails to win best picture? Ok, Hollywood.
..and a big "****, no" to "Lost In Translation". Nothing Oscar worthy there, IMO. Sofia Coppola is a one hit wonder.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 27th, 2006 11:18 PM
