For simplicity’s sake, I’m only considering the Best Actor/Actress and Best Supporting Actor/Actress categories. No special awards, no writing Oscars, none for special FX.
My vote is for “The Untouchables,” the 80s version with Kevin Costner. Sean Connery won BSA for that one, but the movie as a whole was light, shallow entertainment.
Howzabout “Airport?” (Best Supporting Actress for Helen Hayes.)
Anna Magnani won Best Actress for ‘The Rose Tattoo’. I just didn’t care for it. Anna Magnani did a good job, but IMO the whole thing was just badly put together. Burt Lancaster didn’t help.
Shirley Booth won Best Actress for ‘Come Back, Little Sheba.’ Didn’t care for that either. Again, Burt Lancaster didn’t help.
1960’s Butterfield 8 - Elizabeth Taylor (Best Actress).
Mr. Saturday Night. I think that was the year David Paymer beat out Al Pacino and Jack Lemmon, among others, for supporting actor.
Well, there are a host of critically acclaimed, Oscar-winning films that I didn’t think were very good (“American Beauty,” for instance), but I’ll avoid those. I’ll stick to films that generally got mediocre-to-poor reviews, but which featured an award winning performance:
Denzel Washington was quite good, but “Training Day” was a pretty bad movie.
“Philadelphia” got deservedly tepid reviews. Tom Hanks gave a decent perormance in it, but Hollywood gave him the Oscar as a statement of support for AIDS patients, not because they thought he was a great actor.
“Harry and Tonto” was pretty dull stuff. And while I always loved Art Carney, I can’t imagine how anyone could have voted for him over Al Pacino in “The Godfather Part 2.”
“Save the Tiger” was a mess. Jack Lemmon was okay in it, but I suspect he won by default (there weren’t many better performances that year).
“The Accused” was a tedious, predictable courtroom drama. Heck, it could have passed for a made-for-Lifetime-TV movie. Jodie Foster was very good in it, but the movie was tripe.
I can’t comment on Jessica Lange’s performance in “Blue Sky” because I haven’t seen it. But that’s my point- NOBODY saw it! I suspect she won on personal popularity within Hollywood circles, NOT because anybody actually thought she gave a great performance. Reviews for the film were unenthusiastic, to say the least.
“A Touch of Class” is awfully dated… no, actually, it’s just awful. Glenda Jackson was funny in it, but the movie is a waste of celluloid.
“Klute” doesn’t hold up well at all. Jane Fonda’s performance was pretty good, but otherwise, this is a pretty weak detective yarn.
Actually, Paymer was nominated for best supporting actor, but lost out to Gene Hackman, who won for Unforgiven.
That year (1993) Al Pacino won for best actor in Scent of a Woman, which I have never been able to sit through–the movie is boring, the performance grating and irritating. Pacino has had much better non-winning performances, The Insider and Donnie Brasco come to mind.
Whoopi Goldberg was good in “Ghost” -she won best supporting actress, but the movie itself was gawd-awful.
Angelie Jolie in Girl, Interrupted.
I like The Untouchables.
Michael Caine in CIDER HOUSE RULES. Perhaps I was prejudiced because I really liked the book of which this was so small a part, but I thought the movie was boring, preachy, and generally lackluster.
By this time next month the obvious answer will be GANGS OF NEW YORK. Day-Lewis’s performance was fantastic, but the movie is almost unwatchable, though I do love Cameron Diaz’s
1863 washboard abs juxtaposed with her botched Caesarian scar.
Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny.
In recent memory…Russell Crowe in “Gladiator”.
Mary Pickford inexplicably won an Oscar for her performance as a Southern belle flapper in the creaky stage play Coquette (1929). I live and breath old movies, but even I had trouble sitting through that one.
Probably because Jack Nicholson was also up for his great performance in another landmark movie–Chinatown–that same year. They took away votes from one another and enabled Carney–who had the “Old” Hollywood block of Academy voters solidly behind him–to win.
Quite possibly, the only thing worse than Forrest Gump was the original book.
Oh, come on, what is it with the antipathy towards “Forrest Gump”? It was a terrific movie. And while Art Carney should not have won that award, Harry and Tonto was a GOOD movie all the same.
For my money, the worst movie in modern times to win an acting Oscar is probably “Butterfield 8.” Other bad movies include “Scent of a Woman” and “A Thousand Clowns.”
Wow! sniff I thought I was the only one…
Jesus, that movie stunk…
hrh
I have to disagree. (Imagine that!) That this patronizing, simple-minded, anti-intellectual piece of cinematic glurge beat out the infinitely superior, and massively more influential, Pulp Fiction stands as one of the biggest travesties in Oscar history. And that’s saying a hell of a lot, considering the Academy’s history. What really bothered me was that Hanks got Best Actor for this crap. I like Hanks, I think he’s a fine actor and deserves most of his other trophies. But the role of Forrest actually required him to shut down his range to a single note, which he proceeded to hit for the next two hours. There was absolutely no depth or nuance to his performance. I don’t recall who he was up against that year, but unless it was nothing but Carrot Top and Pauly Shore performances, there’s no way his could have been the most deserving performance.
Although I have to say, I really liked Gary Sinise in this movie. They should have made the movie about him, and left the moronic pollyanna on the shrimp boat.
I was bored by “Moonstruck”, and “An Officer and a Gentleman” isn’t much better.
i totally agree… but that’s academy awards politics… russell crowe didn’t win the oscar for gladiator, even if that’s what it says on the statue. he won the oscar for gladiator because of his performance in “the insider,” which he lost to kevin spacey, who completely deserved it for “american beauty.”