I know the Academy Awards often makes mistakes in the winners of the awards. Actually, I’m not too upset by the nominations usually but the winners are sometimes…Well, an example would be in 1995 (when awards were given to 1994 films), when Forrest Gump won Best Picture. It won over Pulp Fiction, and I propose that this was an injustice, basically. I think Pulp Fiction is the best film of the 90’s, that I’ve seen anyway, and to give the award for a single year to another film, which wasn’t bad, but wasn’t worthy (in my opinion) was a big mistake. Pulp Fiction was much more influential and broke new ground in filmmaking, it had fresh spins on situations, I could go on, but you get my point. I would just like to hear some opinions on this, and see if I’m alone in this opinion.
Oh, you’re serious, aren’t you?
I loved Pulp Fiction. A lot of people loved it, and a lot of people on this board will tell you Forrest Gump was an unworthy choice. You make a very good point about the influence “Pulp Fiction” had on caper movies, although most of the copycat movies were pretty crappy.
Having said that, I respectfully disagree; I believe “Forrest Gump” was a better movie, was the best movie of 1994, and deserved the Oscar. I think a lot of self-styled movie critics hugely underrate it. I felt it was a legitimately outstanding movie, and I would have voted for it.
Screw Pulp Fiction. What about South Beach Academy?
Mindy Feldman’s best work EVER, IMHO. And Gary Bristow as the Drill Sergeant? Awesome!
So Michael, what’s your pick for best film of the 90’s? Just wondering, not being disrespectful. And Rick, I get what you’re saying, too, Forrest Gump was good, just not the best in my opinion, so we can agree to disagree.
Three words:
Army of Darkness
So no one agrees? What about The Shawshank Redemption? Should it have had a chance? The other two nominees, Quiz Show and Four Weddings & A Funeral, I really don’t think had much of a chance (if I remember correctly).
Well, if I were an Academy Member, Shawshank would have won but I am biased - it’s a movie very dear to my heart. Pulp Fiction was very good too IMHO. So, I’m with ya.
Fiction had two things going against it: A) Tarantino is an asshole. B) Tarantino was such an asshole that he refues to divulge what was in the suitcase. If he had done that he would have been the one standing up there with his sneering smile for all and sundry to see.
Oh yeah, the whole heroin OD thing and the gimp sequence were probably things that worked against it as well.
Why wasn’t Shawshank very popular? I seems popular now after video, but I heard nary a thing about it theatrically.
Was the title too cumbersome?
My WAG is that Shawshank wasn’t advertised very well. I remember seeing the commercials for it & thinking, “ehhh”. But when it came out on video a friend recommended it, I rented it. I was awed by its story. I think this one truly had been underestimated - when it got to video, it got the attention it deserved.
I’d agree that Pulp Fiction was probably the best film of the 90s, followed by Fargo, The Usual Suspects, and Shakespeare in Love. Forrest Gump wouldn’t make my top 50.
But there was no way in hell that Pulp Fiction would have won a Best Picture – too dark, too edgy, and too much violence.
It’s not news that the Best Picture winner wasn’t the best picture of the year.
I’ve read scads of articles and reviews complaining, “Shawshank Redemption?! What kind of a title is that? They’ll never/ they never would have give(n) the Oscar to a movie with such an awful title!” To which I always replied, “Well, what the hell kind of title is Forrest Gump?!” Except they can’t hear me :).
What kind of title is it? It’s a movie based directly and fairly faithfully on a Stephen King novella called Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption.
Be grateful it was trimmed down a bit.
Cartooniverse
If I had to pick one movie as “Best of the 90’s,” I’d pick “Schindler’s List.” Unpleasant, but wonderful cinema.
“Pulp Fiction” might make the top ten, certainly the top twenty. “Forrest Gump” would certainly be in the top ten.
The one I don’t understand, though, is “The Shawshank Redemption.” It was a good movie, maybe a very good movie, but it wasn’t that terrific, really. The ending went two minutes too long; actually, most ot the deviations from the original story were very bad decisions (and I’m not normally one to complain about that sort of thing; I’m all for changing stories to suit the demands of film.) It was still a good movie, but there was nothing remarkable about it. I just find it absolutely mystifying as to how this film had suddenly become a popular choice for being one of the best movies of all time.
WSLer: Not revealing what was in the suitcase (and there was nothing to reveal, BTW: Tarantino never had anything in mind to be in the case) had nothing to do with it losing the Oscar. It hadn’t a chance in hell.
Forrest Gump broke a bit of ground on the tech side of film making. Most of it’s FX are so good that they don’t LOOK like fx.
Best of the 90s? Schindlers List no question.
I basically can’t stand Forrest Gump, so this’ll be a bit biased. I would pick either Shawshank or Pulp Fiction, probably going with Pulp Fiction. I love both movies, but Pulp Fiction was such a breath of fresh air at the time, especially compared to crap like Forrest Gump. However, movies that show Ving Rhames getting raped probably won’t win Best Picture.
To me the worst miscarriage of justice from an Oscar standpoint was Driving Miss Daisy winning Best Picture instead of Glory. I cheered Denzel Washington after he accepted the Best Supporting Actor award that year; he basically told the Academy they had screwed up by not selecting Glory.
How can this be, as the best picture Oscar is given last and the Best Supporting Actor award is one of the first Oscars handed out? Doesn’t sound right to me.
Kind of hard to award a picture for being groundbreaking and influential on other films when other films hadn’t had a chance to be influenced by it. If there were retro-Oscars, maybe.