“Regardless, if anyone present is about to say that Titanic has a better story than Hamlet, they know where to go.”
The Pit? 
Well, no matter the truth or falsity of your arguments that quality is purely subjective, that statement is certainly false. In twenty years, no one will remember SIL except as a quaint little 1990s romantic period piece, while SPR will still be hailed as one of the best war movies ever made.
“Titanic”'s 14 nominations & 11 Oscars both tied the existing
records held by, respectively, “All About Eve” and “Ben Hur.” (IIRC, of course)
I’m a little confused as to why Spielberg would be shocked at not winning an Oscar, since he’s lost most of the times he’s been nominated.
Miller:
Whatever we might think of the films personally, I am willing to bet $10,000 you’re wrong about this. $20,000. I’d LOVE for you to take that bet. Please. I’d wager big money that in 20 years, “Shakespeare in Love” will be largely forgotten, while “Saving Private Ryan” will be regarded as a landmark film. If nothing else, I would point out that, historically, Steven Spielberg films seem to last as cultural touchstones.
If you don’t believe me, ask yourself this. Which do people remember more: “Jaws” or “Barry Lyndon”?
Which do people remember more: “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” or “Annie Hall”?
Which do people remember more: “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “Chariots of Fire”?
Same question: “E.T.” or “Gandhi”?
Same question: “Jurassic Park” or “Schindler’s…” uh, no, bad comparison. Well, how about “Jurassic Park” and “The Remains of the Day” or “In The Name of the Father”?
Miller, please re-read the quote you snipped. I didn’t say no one discussed the movie. I said no one stood up to leave, and no one said a single word on the way out. I trust you understand the difference.
How old are you? Do your parents know that you are still on the computer? Don’t you have homework to do on your Leappad?
After your nap, I’m sure you’ll agree that Chicago was well done.
Excellent choreography, great art direction, wonderful cinematography, and outstanding performances from the leads(except Richard Gere, who I find to be the blandest actor alive).
Well, I am sure your parents are proud that their upbringing has led you to the belief that a smartass remark is equivalent to an intelligent one.
They are, and thank you for your concern about their happiness.
Now… realize that not everyone is going to agree with you about Shaving Ryan’s Privates, and move on.
You first.
Okay… but you have to promise you won’t tell and let me get a reputation for being easy.
On my honor.
Must.
Get In.
Last.
cough
WORD.
What is this, the Argument Clinic from Monty Python? If you don’t have anything more significant to add than “No it isn’t”, what’s the point of talking to you?
RickJay: Well, I’d argue Close Encounters v. Annie Hall, but you’ve got a point there. I still think Private Ryan doesn’t have the staying power of Spielburg’s earlier films. He was a great fantasist, but excepting Schindler’s List, his “serious” films just don’t stand up over time.
kunilou: Oh, I see. You’d all fallen asleep!
Okay, seriously. I was being a little disingenuous in my earlier post, because your comment was kind of pointless. I’ve never suggested that Ryan wasn’t popular and well-received. Hell, right after I saw it I was impressed as hell. It was only after thinking about the film for a little bit, and then seeing it again on the small screen, that I realized what an unsatisfactory experience the movie really is. On the other hand, I’ve seen Shakespeare in Love at least a half-dozen times (I own the DVD) and I’m more impressed with every viewing. I still pick up on things I’ve never noticed before.
Miller, I’m going to have to disagree with you, in a respectful, non-sarcastic and non-disingenuous way. I admire the craft that went into Shakespeare in Love, but when it comes to a “better” movie, I still vote for the one that had enough emotional impact to knock the wind out of an entire theater full of people and leave them speechless.
You’re right. Shakespeare In Love did that so well that all other movies that year paled in comparison.
Don’t make me break our agreement.
Only by Americans. If you aren’t American, it’s not possible to relate to it in the same way - it’s just another war movie. That makes it inferior to so many films that do cross that boundary.
The best war movies are those that make you care about the soldiers more than the mission or the war, and Ryan doesn’t do that either.
Best serious war movies? In no particular order:
Platoon
Apocalypse Now
Zulu
The Dam Busters
Bridge on the River Kwai
Three Kings
All Quiet on the Western Front
Kagemusha
Patton: Lust For Glory
Full Metal Jacket
Well I think Amelie was a better movie than No Man’s Land, but I don’t htink it is a very egregious error. Sa for SIL vs. SPR. I don’t know I think both movies are pretty good, SIL is entertaining and witty, SPR is very emotional, but pale in comparison to many past winners or even losers. I think that was a particularly weak year.
I gave up on the Oscars when John Wayne in True Grit was given BA over Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy. That was a long time ago, I still consider the Oscars a sham, won’t watch the awards show and it looks like the situation hasn’t improved much.