It’s hard to see how Crash could possibly not win this award, but my god Argo, Titanic and Birdman gave it a hell of a try.
I personally love Gladiator, but Best Picture? Really?
Sheesh, I’m older than I thought…
I chose The English Patient as the all-time worst. I found it frightfully, even offensively, dull, and could hardly wait for it to be over. Braveheart is a close second. I haven’t seen Chariots of Fire but judging from the reviews I’ve read, it might be even worse than The English Patient.
My classifications of all the films:
Masterpieces
I consider these to be almost perfect moves, which are among my very favourites.
[ul]
[li]The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King[/li][li]American Beauty[/li][li]Schindler’s List[/li][li]Amadeus[/li][/ul]
Great movies
I was never bored when watching these. I found little or nothing to complain about; I just don’t think they’re the crème de la crème.
[ul]
[li]Argo[/li][li]No Country for Old Men[/li][li]Gladiator[/li][li]Titanic[/li][li]The Last Emperor[/li][/ul]
Good movies
Movies which on the whole I enjoyed, but which I felt had significant flaws.
[ul]
[li]Spotlight[/li][li]Birdman[/li][li]The Artist[/li][li]The King’s Speech[/li][li]Slumdog Millionaire[/li][li]The Departed[/li][li]Million Dollar Baby[/li][li]Chicago[/li][li]A Beautiful Mind[/li][li]Shakespeare in Love[/li][li]The Silence of the Lambs[/li][li]Dances with Wolves[/li][li]Driving Miss Daisy[/li][li]Rain Man[/li][li]Gandhi[/li][li]Kramer vs. Kramer[/li][/ul]
OK movies
These movies are (barely) better than average. They kept me entertained for two hours, but were quite forgettable.
[ul]
[li]Forrest Gump[/li][li]12 Years a Slave[/li][/ul]
Dull movies
Below average movies. On the whole pretty dull, but maybe with some interesting parts, or alternatively a generally interesting idea that was poorly executed.
[ul]
[li]Platoon[/li][/ul]
Dreadful movies
A dreadfully dull movie which could not be saved even by competent production. Rarely if ever interesting. I kept waiting for the movie to finish, and would never watch it again.
[ul]
[li]The English Patient[/li][li]Braveheart[/li][/ul]
Haven’t seen
[ul]
[li]The Shape of Water[/li][li]Moonlight[/li][li]The Hurt Locker[/li][li]Crash[/li][li]Unforgiven[/li][li]Out of Africa[/li][li]Terms of Endearment[/li][li]Chariots of Fire[/li][li]Ordinary People[/li][/ul]
I think I saw the English Patient around the time that I saw half of Wings of Desire, so my baseline for what’s dreadfully dull may be different from other folks’. I don’t ever want to see EP again, but I sat through it fine.
Wings of Desire is another snoozefest. I rank it right down there at the bottom with The English Patient. There they can join every other film by Wim Wenders. Oh, and Werner Herzog too.
My vote was for Crash, for the trite shallow unsubtle after-school specialness of it all. What elevated its badness even further was the complete waste of talented actors.
Chicago gets honorable mention for casting the blandest most emotionless actors possible against type in musical roles that mandate flamboyance and expression.
Sure! Historical epic, great cast, cool action scenes, a compelling revenge tale, excellent cinematography, rich costumes, etc.
I’ve never really thought about it this way before, but this makes perfect sense to me now. Do you have any opinions on particular actors they should have cast instead?
Interesting how it seems there’s a swell in votes for undeserving best pictures for about a decade beginning with Forrest Gump
…which is really weird because the 1990s are widely touted as a sort of mini-Golden Age or renaissance of cinema.
This.
Get out of my head, Mahaloth
Recency effect. People will remember movies from 1994 better than they do movies from, say, 1979. It was to be expected most of the votes would be in the latter half of the list.
Objectively it’s hard to explain why “Out of Africa” isn’t a way, way, way, way worse movie than “Forrest Gump” but it was longer ago, fewer people have seen it, and fewer people who saw it remember it.
Hmm, interesting. Often difficult if not simply plugging established theater talents into a cast, but looking at other films from 2002 I think these would be my casting picks from the 2002 talent pool…
–Eminem. The guy showed talent and screen presence in 8-Mile. This could have been a fresh turn on the stale traditional musical format.
–Cameron Diaz. Undeniable dancing chops. She couldn’t sing worse than what Chicago had.
–Michelle Rodriguez. Convincingly tough and sexy, the anti-Zellweger.
Honestly, the best people for the job would almost certainly have been professional song-and-dance performers, people who are established stars in Broadway musicals, which cannot be said of Eminem, Cameron Diaz, or Michelle Rodriguez.
Indeed, tone of voice has absolutely no place in determining whether someone you don’t know has said something they wouldn’t normally say, and is, therefore, making a joke.
After all, as nobody would ever hold or express an opinion I would consider absurd, cruel, or stupid, anyone expressing such opinions must be doing so humorously.
Didn’t Richard Gere and Christine Baranski (who starred in the movie) have experience in Broadway musicals? Gere was an understudy for the Broadway production of Grease, and also starred in the original West End production. Baranski had a couple Tonys under her belt for Broadway plays (though not for musicals) but did feature in at least one Broadway musical (Nick & Nora) and has held leading or featured roles in several non-Broadway productions of Broadway musicals.
Titanic. Horrible, cheesy writing that turned me off immediately.
I missed seeing Prince of Tides on the list, maybe too old or I just overlooked it. I remember watching Shawshank with my late husband, and when it was over saying how the hell did this not win best picture and finding out it was the completely forgettable Prince. I adored Pat Conroy but that adaptation sucked donkey balls.
Prince of Tides didn’t win B Picture. Silence of the Lambs won that year.
Shawshank was nominated in 1995 (for 1994 films), lost to Forrest Gump.
I can do it easily. Forrest Gump is a stupid movie, with a stupid premise, that works only because:
-
We love nostalgic walks down Memory Lane,
-
Tom Hanks, and
-
Hi, Opal!
By comparison, while “Out of Africa” can be boring to some, it’s a reasonably well-written, decently filmed period romance, with a number of very good actors involved. I would venture to guess that just about anyone who is turned off by “The English Patient” probably thinks “Out of Africa” is a waste of time. But for those who think that way, there are equally many (if not more), who love such movies. The worst criticism most people level at it is that it was too long, a function of the slow pacing (which, in fairness, amplifies the “boring” nature of the movie to many).
ETA: However, I think your underlying point is valid. Recent movies will be more likely to remain fresh in all ways in the memory, including opinions from watching them that they were poorly made. I notice that Ordinary People, for example, only has 1 vote. It’s a very ordinary movie, really. But I wonder for how many people voting in this poll that movie has been seen within the last 20 years…
Gere did have some song and dance experience. Characterizing Christine Baranski as “starring in the movie” is a bit of a stretch of the word “starring” - she wouldn’t even qualify as a primary supporting player. The stars of the movie are Gere, Zellweger and Zeta-Jones, with the biggest assists from Queen Latifah and John C. Reilly.
I mean, I honestly don’t think Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellwegger were bad; they were fine. I am quite convinced though that there were 100 people who’d have been better - but the thing in today’s musicals is to cast stars and then spend a few months desperately teaching them to sing and dance. This worked okay in Chicago, but in some other examples it’s a stretch. Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling were really at or slightly beyond the limits of their abilities in “La La Land,” for instance, and Ewan MacGregor was out of his element in “Moulin Rouge!” though it kind of worked in an odd way for that movie.
Most professional actors will have SOME experience in musicals early in their career and education. It’s just part of your training and education, but there’s a visible difference between someone who was good in musicals in high school and college and someone who is an actual elite song and dance perfomer.
I am sure the economics of it makes sense, just as I am sure it makes sense they cast big stars to do voice work in animated features when they could hire a real voice actor who’s just as good for a twentieth of the price. Names matter.
Anyway, in retrospect I barely remember the story in “Chicago.” It was about ladies in prison and that’s the extent of what I can recall. I stick with my choice of Return of the King, but Chicago was a remarkably underwhelming academy choice.