This is my pic, followed by Titanic and Shakespeare in Love. What do you people think are the worst winners, being the results of weak years or poor choices by the Academy? Let's make this into a big post that goes on for a while. Please.
"Do I have an original thought in my head? My bald head?"
WEST SIDE STORY.
Visit my webpage - Cinephile Empire: http://imperiocinefilo2.blogspot.com/
Kramer vs. Kramer and Ordinary People over Raging Bull is the worst choice ever
shareEnd of story.
Followed closely by "Gladiator" (mainly because it had won a few years earlier when it was named "Braveheart") and "The Greatest Show on Earth".
You need to distinguish between saying you do not like a movie and asserting it is a bad movie. Tom Jones is most certainly not a bad movie; on the contrary, it is an innovative movie with exceptional acting and great wit.
There have been some terrible choices for the Oscar. Recently, American Beauty, which apparently was created after a survey of what attitudes people would enjoy seeing displayed rather than with any integrity of purpose, qualifies as a truly dreadful choice. Similarly, Titanic, composed of shallow cliches and idiotic dialogue, is another awful selection. It's not a matter in these cases of liking or not liking the movies; they are simply poorly written, although they may have some technical qualities to admire.
In earlier years, the stilted language and characters of Ben Hur seemed to impress the serious minded phonies of the day. One of the worst movies ever to garner an Oscar.
To give an example of the difference between disliking a movie and considering it a bad movie, I offer Gone With the Wind. I do not like the movie, and I think DeHavilland and Howard are terrible in their roles-or perhaps simply that their characters are terribly irritating. But I have to admit that the movie has merits that lift it above the average despite some scenes that simply pad the film. Leigh and Gable are fine and there are elements of the story and the filming of it that are extraordinary.
My list for the Worst Best Picture winners
1. The English Patient- Fargo should have easily won
2. Chicago- I don't like musicals
3. Forrest Gump- Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction were far more better movies
4. Titanic- L.A. Confidential is better acted and with a great original story
5. A Beautiful Mind- Weak oscar nominations that is why it won the award
I agree that "The English Patient" was vastly overrated and self-consciously important, that is arty nonsense. I would list it among the worst movies ever to win the Oscar.
But again, if the definition of worst Oscar winners means least deserving because other films that year were better, it is legitimate to criticize pictures for stealing the award. But if the definition is that some award winners were simply bad pictures, which is how I see it, the list is different. On another thread, someone lists "Ordinary People" as undeserving because "Raging Bull" was so much superior. I agree, but that does not make "Ordinary People" a bad movie. On the other hand, I do not know which other movies were up for the award the years that "Titanic" or "American Beauty" won, but that is irrelevant. They were terrible movies; any other movie with any merit were better choices.
The Worst:
"Shakespeare in Love" (wtf? Saving Private Ryan was incredible, that's when i get pissed at hollywood).
"Titanic" --cheesy love story; last half of the flick was alright.
"Oliver"-- 2001: A Space Odyssey all the way.
I have this feeling that people think I'm paranoid.
www.freewebs.com/filmnerd (film trivia)
People who are dissing Braveheart must be joking. That is an unbelievably great movie!
Although I love Lord of the Rings: ROTK, I think the first movie in the trilogy is the best one. ROTK just won and is considered so great because it is the grand finale. I think Fellowship should have won in its year, and ROTK should not have won.
This is certainly up there and to think it beat out Hud (1963) for best picture; what a disgrace! As usual the Academy were more interested in rewarding 'a feel good "romp"' like Tom Jones rather than something deep and bleak. Other contenders Gigi (1958), which beat out Vertigo (1958); what a joke!
shareI gotta see these movies!
shareThis film was a breath of fresh air in 1963, which surely is how the Oscar came to be awarded. It may be showing its age a little these days, but that's not surprising.
However, whatever one thinks about it, surely Theb is claiming too much when calling this the "worst picture". Of the Oscar winners, I'd say that the following were "much worse":
1930/31 Cimmaron. 1931/32 Grand Hotel. 1932/33 Cavalcade. 1935 Mutiny on the Bounty. 1936 The Great Ziegfeld. 1937 The Life of Emile Zola. 1941 How Green Was My Valley. 1942 Mrs Miniver. 1944 Going My Way. 1947 Gentleman’s Agreement. 1952 The Greatest Show on Earth. 1960 The Apartment. 1964 My Fair Lady. 1973 The Sting. 1976 Rocky. 1980 Ordinary People. 1985 Out of Africa. 1989 Driving Miss Daisy. 1994 Forrest Gump. 1996 The English Patient. 1997 Titanic.
Now, I'm not saying that these are "bad" films, a lot of them were stunning in their day, it's just that they're showing their age much more than TJ.
And as for the question of "better" films not winning the Oscar, I'd suggest that these nominees should have won:
1932/33 The Private Life of Henry VIII. 1935 David Copperfield or Top Hat. 1937 Captains Courageous or Lost Horizon. 1941 Citizen Kane. 1942 The Magnificent Ambersons. 1947 Great Expectations. 1964 Dr Strangelove.
All-in-all, this is a silly but enjoyable way of passing the time.
[deleted]
The Apartment(60)
an unfunny, drab comedy-drama,Psycho(60)wasn't even nominated!
Around the World in 80 Days(56)
did academy members actually sit through this 3hr., stuffed with cameos, bore?
or did its large cast vote all vote for it?
Out of Africa&
Amadeus&
Mllion Dollar Baby&
A Beautiful Mind
What were they thinking? None of these are anywhere near classic status.
Midnight Cowboy(69)
was it fashionable and daring at the time? Sylvia Miles rules!
Ben Hur (59)
it's all about the chariot race. North by Northwest(59) and Some Like It Hot(59) weren't even nomimnated
A Man for All Seasons(66)
snoozefest
In the Heat of the Night (67)
forced,contrived
The French Connection(71)
its got a good chase scene
Chicago (2002)
dreck! this thing beat The Pianist!?
Rain Man (88
yuck!
American Beauty(99)
rather forgettable
In no particular order:
GANDHI!, Out of Africa, Kramer vs. Kramer, In the Heat of the Night, Oliver, American Beauty, Rain Man, Around the World in Eighty Days, and if things go as I am afraid they might this year, Dreamgirls!!!!
While these agree with a lot of the other posts, I do love West Side Story, Shakespeare in Love, The Apartment, and Tom Jones.
Oops, I left off one of the all time worsts:
The English Patient.
I was a senior in high school when this was in theaters, and I think it was rated "X"--not porn "x" like later, but regular theater, you had to be an "adult" to see it, "x." 17 or 18 yrs old. I was 16. It was considered scandalous by many! Shocking! An attractive guy--why would HE be gay? He could get a girl. The idea of NYC street life was a shock in the suburbs.
For young people who weren't around then, the 60s were NOT a wild or rebellious time for most of the country. THAT happened in the 1970s. In 1967, there were hippies in San Francisco, and rock stars led wild lives, but most guys still had short hair, girls wore dresses (it was spring, 1969, before we were allowed to wear pants to school because someone sued, and after that, another suit led to jeans, and after that boys got to have long hair, and then beards--and this was in the Los Angeles County School District! Not Kansas. But Hollywood.... Anyone curious about how America changed ought to look at yearbook photos year by year. It's the best indicator of what real people looked like! Midnight Cowboy was completely out of the blue! People were blown away by its content.
No one saw gay people until the 70s..., and then you had to look for them. It was a conservative world until the 1970s. Wpmen had to wear dresses to get in some places. If 2 guys touched each other in public, they would probably be assaulted, hurt...maybe worse. Hollywood was the first area in So. Ca. to accept gays, but even in the 80s, other places would not tolerate the idea. Well into the 80s, significant numbers of men put up a real show about "throwing up" at the thought of 2 guys kissing, or a girl being kissed on the lips by a gay friend--a real intolerance to what was acceptable behavior to others, esp younger people (Reagan voters--who won the elections thinking they were taking back the country from the wild leftists, college kids, "fruits and nuts"...) They thought they could throw women out of "mens" jobs, not hire gays, not hire college educated people in favor of those "with common sense" ie, no education.
So anyway, yes, that movie shocked a lot of people. Though many did not see it until much later, since it only played in certain theaters, because of the "x" rating.
I haven't seen all the Best Picture winners, but of those I have I thought the weakest were "The Greatest Show on Earth" (1952), "Around the World in Eighty Days" (1956), "Tom Jones" (1963), "Oliver!" (1968), "Driving Miss Daisy" (1989), "Braveheart" (1995), "Titanic" (1997), "Shakespeare in Love" (1998), and "Gladiator" (2000).
Films that were nominated for Best Picture that in my opinion didn't deserve to be include "The Alamo" (1960), "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962), "Cleopatra" (1963), "Doctor Dolittle" (1967), "Hello, Dolly!" (1967), "Airport" (1970), "Love Story" (1970), "The Towering Inferno" (1974), "Fatal Attraction" (1987), "Working Girl" (1988), "Ghost" (1990), and "Moulin Rouge!" (2001).
[deleted]
My list for worst Best Picture Winners would include
The English Patient
Out of Africa
Titanic (the love-traingle storyline has been a staple of the soaps for decades), and
Crash
But I just saw Tom Jones tonight, and I have to say, I would rather sit through any of the above again than watch this atrocity.
Well, I'm only going to pick ONE.
There have been some best picture winners that I don't agree with, as is the case with anyone. Honestly, for someone to say that any film that has won best picture (in any awards ceremony, not just the Oscars) is "the worst movie ever" as if their opinion is the last word is ignorant. They don't acknowledge that they're in the minority or that there's a strong difference between disliking something and objectively recognizing its merits. Furthermore, there's also a difference between a worst best picture winner and a genuinely awful movie and the sooner some people realize that the better.
A worst best picture winner is just a film that, while it's obviously genuinely good, was chosen over more deserving winners. Or, if you were to list every best picture winner in order of greatness, there's going to be a best and a worst. Just ONE of each. Not bloody ten worst best picture winners like everyone here has been listing. Some people are just bitch-happy and write a list of movies they don't particularly like and call them worst best picture winners. Ignorance at its finest, really.
Whew, there's my rant. IMDb users get me riled up. I'm very passionate about film and strongly opinionated, especially on movies I adore, and I can get defensive.
But I digress.
My least favorite best picture winner has got to be Forrest Gump. I've seen it a few times and the first time was torturous. I found Tom Hanks annoying and the film just too episodic and incohesive. However, I was only 13 at the time and I watched it again a couple years later. I liked it a bit more that time around but I still wasn't terribly fond of it. Then I saw it a third time a few years later and it's kind of grown on me. I like some parts but hate others. Mostly I just think Pulp Fiction deserved best picture but Forrst Gump was understandably chosen because of an overwhelming sentimental value and very little controversy.
Not like any of us can change the best picture winners now so why get so angry over it?
Everytime you use the word overrated God kills a kitten
Well I appreciate the passion hawrnball, but...
We've not been saying that any one of our choices is the definitely "worst" Oscar winner, only that each of our choices is "worse" than Tom Jones.
It's been a gentle touch of irony, making the same points that you do in the beginning of your posting, but more in a more kindly way.
Not that I think there's anything wrong with showing you're riled, or am criticising what you've posted (I write all of that without irony), only that I ought to explain that we were having a polite joke at the expense of the original poster and were passing a few happy minutes politely telling him off.