Crash and A Beautiful Mind are the two most infuriating Best Picture wins that come to mind.

Still onto Crash-is-vitriol vitriol? OK by me.

You bet.

In reference to the Jaws & Cuckoo's Nest discussion, 1975, was the best Academy Award recognition event. The directors, writers, films, and actors-all deserving--were nominated. The director race in '75 is another issue: Fellini, Kubrick, Lumet, Forman and Altman. As well as Pacino or Nicholson?! Tough year.

had it been nominated dreamgirls certainly would have been.

Crash is probably the worst to win, and also Shakespeare in Love. At least Munich or Capote should have won in 2005.

Without a doubt, the worst film to win an Oscar is Titanic. I remember seeing this movie when I was eight, and was so deathly bored by it I played a game with a friend where we would count how many times Jack and Rose kissed and how many people were seen dying. Five years later and my opinion didn't change to much. It was still overly long, painfully dull, and although the acting was good, the love story was still terrible. I thought it almost cheapened the horrors of the Titanic tragedy by tacking on a cliche ridden love story with stilted dialogue that seemed to drag on forever and ever.

Shakespeare in Love is the worst, but it does show Gwyneth's boobs for a second. How is that for a redeeming quality?

I would have to go with Chicago which isn't even that great for a musical let-alone the Best Picture of that year.

Other recent disappointments include: Titanic, A Beautiful Mind and Crash.

quote:

TheGunslinger Slacker
Posted 06 February 2008 02:36 PM Hide Post
I would have to go with Chicago which isn't even that great for a musical let-alone the Best Picture of that year.

Other recent disappointments include: Titanic, A Beautiful Mind and Crash.

Mixed feelings. I can understand your feelings regarding all these movies. However, my reasoning may not yours.

I liked all the movies you mentioned, with Titanic (1997) probably the least off all because of its somewhat sappy and clique character acting), though it symbolized one of the strongest, emotional, a feminine expression idealized love in any movie in an epic period piece, and an almost unforgettable, haunting ending. Art film critics would have likely preferred that LA Confidential have been awarded best picture. Even the comedy The Fully Monty had a comical, but pertinent movie, and well received audience and Good Will Hunting had its own strong merits about even more complicated if not idealistic relational issues. Even, The Sweet Hereafter which wasn't nominated for best picture was a truly dramatic shocker of a movie. Perhaps 1997 as an escapist year.

As for A Beautiful Mind (2001), I had a more subjective preference for Moulin Rouge which in my mind was the definitive movie musical that resuscitated the musical as a legitimate movie artform, which opened the door for Chicagoto being considered for best picture. Part of me feels that the best picture award for Chicago was due in part for Moulin Rouge being overlooked the year before. I did find A Beautiful Mind a good movie, worthy of Best Picture nomination because of its performances, its presentation of schizophrenia, its dramatic twist...it was well done. I just felt that it didn't resonate with as a universal and industry-wide impact that Mouline Rouge did as an art form. But I can understand why A Beautiful Mind won that year.

As for Chicago (2002), I enjoyed the movie, I thought it used its movie technology well, it was entertaining. While most art critics probably would have gone with Pianist, I couldn't have supported it for my own personal problems with the movie as being too manipulative and artificial for me as I recall. My personal favorite from a performance standpoint and because Nicole Kidman is a favorite actress of mine, The Hours met the qualities I look for in a best picture movie.

Finally, as for Crash (2005), was among my personal favorite movies of 2005, in addition to North Countryand Munich, and Jarhead. Admittedly I didn't see and haven't seen Brokeback Mountain regarding homosexuality, but I still stand by Crash has containing a vital sociological message vital to our society that is as or more important than that found inBrokeback Mountain as the underlying emotional basis that reverberates in Crash is just as basic, with the same or even more devastating consequences to many more people and that has been recognized and thought having been dealt with for decades.

Dare couldnt' remember where this thread was. But in order to create a little commotion, I've selected as my Worst Film to Win Oscar as Best Picture is the newly annointed No Country for Old Men because of its many, many technical and structural flaws as a movie which have yet to be adequately rebutted by anyone. Let me go over the many problems with this movie in summarized format:

(1) Too many cutaway scenes where Javier Bardem's character is about to carry out the fate-determined outcome on his victims.

(2) Javier and Tommy Lee Jone's characters never really interact much on screen and Tommy Lee Jone's character just fades away towards the end of the movie. There really isn't any direct confrontation by major characters Javier and others except for Josh Brolin's character. Neither Javier (supposedly expert assassin) nor Josh Brolin seem to really have that much skill or craft in avoiding or killing - too much is left up to dumb luck or artifical script devices.

(3) Josh Brolin's self-talk narrative on his hunt for the missing suitcare is out of character and appears more for a dumb audience than for realistic authenticity.

(4) Woody Harrelson's character seem incompetent except for luckily locating an important lost item - no skill at all. Another simple script device without any effort - lazy.

(5) Exploding car scene is way out of character for Javier and appears more for dramatic action thrills not consistent with the rest of the movie.

(6) Bodies sprawled in deliberately positions way in the shoot out scene, not in line with authentic realism - this scene was posed and designed without a shot-out in mind.

(7) The very beginning predictable escape scene was too clique, setting up the problems with the rest of the movie.

I think I have generally addressed just about all the points above here, so I won't get into it.

What I find odd is the Coens winning best adapted screenplay, when in actuality, they adapted very little, most likely the least of any of the nominees. I really think There Will Be Blood should have won best adapted. PT Anderson really started from a loose framework provided by the novel and made it his own.

quote:

Originally posted by PaddyG:
I really think There Will Be Blood should have won best adapted. PT Anderson really started from a loose framework provided by the novel and made it his own.

The thing about There Will Be Blood was that it relied far more on visuals than words to tell its story. I think about 10 or 15 minutes went by before anyone uttered a single word. I'm curious as to what PTA's script actually looked like.

For me that's one of the things that made the movie though. You don't see too many films anymore that use dialog as a way to supplement the story, rather than tell it. Anderson's an incredible talent.

quote:

PaddyG Jedi
Posted 26 February 2008 10:34 AM

What I find odd is the Coens winning best adapted screenplay, when in actuality, they adapted very little, most likely the least of any of the nominees. I really think There Will Be Blood should have won best adapted. PT Anderson really started from a loose framework provided by the novel and made it his own.

Thanks for bringing up the Adapted Screenplay Category. While reading your comment, another Adapted Screenplay came to mind. Having finally read Beowulf and reflecting back on the movie Beowulf, I am struck by the inclusion and strengthening of Grendal's mother as portrayed by Angelina Jolie in the movie. The adaptation brought to the screen an amazing emotional punch to the movie that the original poem written about 1000 A.D. didn't have. Looking back on it, it was a good example of how a screenwriter can make the source material become even more poignant and compelling.

Thanks for referencing your No Country for Old Men link. I'll go back to reflect on your thoughts.

Many, many thanks to PaddyG - I couldn't find this post when I needed it. I'm going to have to save it.

Found my original long list of complaints about No Country for Old Men:

(1) No dates nor locations labeled.

(2) Josh Brolin just sits on bed directly in line of fire behind closed door.

(3) Bodies shot in same locations on body and laid out in crouched position, instead of flayed back position.

(4) Case being taken out of air duct without hearing it creak (even with air powered explosions).

(5) Man missing shooting bird (unlike Hannabil there is no redeeming human value - more mechanical roll of the dice of a robotic animal).

(6) Fascinating comparison between man killing man and man killing animal (and missing). Don't know Josh Brolin's background well enough in terms of military training.

(7) Tracking device sucks.

(8) How do people locate other people? How does Carson Wells locate the money before Anton? How does he do it period?

(9) Carson Wells was caught too easily, not even the usual I'm caught shot. Offers only $14,000 - an insult in itself.

(10) Josh Brolin gets shot at while bringing water back (couldn't hear truck miles away?).

(11) Why does Brolin's wife have to die? Where are seatbelts?

(12) The emotional/relevance contrast between new and old in 2007 is reduced by the movie itself being shot during 1980s.

(13) Why is the wife even without protection assuming the mother was killed?
Sheriff and Anton drinking from same milk bottle, reflected in same television set (overall cute) .

(14) Josh talking to himself (tracking the money) - a weak director's ploy.

(15) Car explosion outside pharmacy was an unnecessary and unlikely way Anton would have obtained drugs.

(16) Would have been better if each individual be confronted with coin flip fate and experience their individual reactions as well as Anton's. Anton remains too distant, strange a figure. First scene betrays inconsistent personality expression while struggling officer.

(17) Sheriff and Anton never really connect together - almost two different storylines but not clearly distinguished making for uneasy audience anticipation, expectations from former Tommy Lee Jone's characters and actions.

(18)Too much indirect implications in a movie that incorporations too many different directions. Prefer direct approach in this type of movie, unless focus is on discovery, which it isn't.

I liked the movie, tab, but I can't help but smile at your list and perseverance!

As I said elsewhere, I intentionally went into this movie No Country for Old Mendeciding that I wouldn't like it and I looked carefully for what I didn't like and found a good number things. I tried to do the same thing with There Will Be Blood and while I found a few problems with the movie, I ended up feeling that it was a really good movie. Whether not or not No Country for Old Men would have been an enjoyable and entertaining experience if I had just went to see it I don't know. I put a lot of effort watching the movie, intensely in fact. Well I got out of the movie what I went in for. Perhaps that a sign of a great movie.

Isn't it a little strange to go into a movie expecting to hate it? I understand the concept of low/high expectations, but it seems if you go into a movie looking for faults, you'll find them.

I've said before most of the things on your list are awfully "nit-picky" and I can't imagine they'd really bother someone who didn't set out looking for faults. I didn't even love the film, but I don't think most of the items on that list are fair criticisms.

Has anyone mentioned Platoon yet?