IMO one of the best years ever for movies,just look at this list. * 1939 (12th) Gone with the Wind - Selznick, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer - David O. Selznick o Dark Victory - Warner Bros. - David Lewis o Goodbye, Mr. Chips - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer - Victor Saville o Love Affair - RKO Radio - Leo McCarey o Mr. Smith Goes to Washington - Columbia - Frank Capra o Ninotchka - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer - Sidney Franklin o Of Mice and Men - Roach, United Artists - Lewis Milestone o Stagecoach - United Artists - Walter Wanger o The Wizard of Oz - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer - Mervyn LeRoy o Wuthering Heights - Goldwyn, United Artists - Samuel Goldwyn 2003 The Lord of Rings- The Return of the King (winner).I thought Seabiscuit was a dam good movie,the book,like so often the case,was even better.
Indeed, ever watch the trailer's of Braveheart on the dvd?? Awesome!!! Gladiator was great also, and The Departed was a great film with some of the best acting I have ever seen in one movie. DiCaprio was nothing less then "Fin-Omenal"
Dude, I have a lot of respect for you and your film opinion but this comment makes me shake my head... see? lol Crash is one of the best films I've seen in a long, long time and one of the few recent films I've thought was actually worth a best filmer.
Crash is good... I just liked Brokeback Mountain better. My problem with Crash is the same problem I have with every Paul Haggis related movie (Mistic River has it worse) which is that it basically relies on you giving the movie a huge *** leap of faith. You need to accept all those coincidences in order for it to work out and therefore in the end the result seems contrived. In my opinion at least. Brokeback is an almost perfect movie (the only problem with it being that scene when they meet each other after years of not seeing each other and they make out and cry... which was not an honest scene and therefore doesnt work). I don't think Crash is a bad movie... I think it is an OK movie, and BM was a better film. As to the problems with Departed... Departed plainly sucks. First time you watch it you think it is ok, but then you give it a second viewing and it is just painful to watch, the overacting is the first thing that hits you and the blatant lack of any level of subtlety is what hits you next. Damn movie has things like a rat walking on a balcony which just screams metaphor, it is not even attempting to do it smartly it is just laying it out there. Nicholson is being nicholson but over doing it, Marky Mark is annoying, Martin Sheen is overacted and plain bad. The only two good things are Matt Damon and DiCaprio (plus its blatant mysoginy is just absurd). Compare that to Children of Men, which came out that year, that was an incredible movie... acting was great, every scene was perfect in terms of sound, music, cinematography... it includes two scenes that are more complex cinematically than the whole Departed movie (the scene where they are ambushed in the car, which is all done in one shot 10 minutes of action in ONE SINGLE SHOT!!!!! ONE SINGLE SHOT!!!!! you have no idea how complex and incredible that is... Hitch**** had a hard time doing that and he was just doing conversations in an apartment, like in the rope, this was an action scene, with murders, shots cars and explosions... in one shot, no cutting, one shot!!! and then you have the scene where he goes down the building with the baby in his arms... not only is it incredibly powerful, but the amount of elements going on in that tracking shot are just impressive.. if you have seen both movies no one can tell me that Departed was a better movie). As for Gladiator and Braveheart, here's my problem with them: they are cookie cutter movies. Yes they spent a lot of money with them, and yes both hit a casting goal with charismatic actors playing charismatic leaders. But they are the same movie as every epic movie before them and the same movie as every epic movie after them. They brought nothing new to the world of cinema (unless you count Ridley Scott's awfully sappy shots of wheat as something new) the minute the movie started, you knew what was going to happen and you knew you where in for a spectacle. And here is my thing, while I enjoy spectacles as much as anyone else, and I have incredible fun watching these movies (well Gladiator... Braveheart I didn't like at all) I draw the line at saying that this was the best movie of their year. I want the best movie to take a risk, to do something new (or at least try) not to hook itself to the ideas of a old Academy and regurgitate actions and situations that have been seen plenty of times already. They are fun and well worth the 11 bucks you spend (at least in NY) to go to the movies, but they aren't trascendent pieces of cinema. They just aren't. They become a part of pop culture yes, but Britney Spears is a part of pop Culture and no one is going to mistake her for the greatest singer any year she was up there. They are fine movies... but they where not the best movies of their year.
That is a pretty myopic view Of cinema...basically you are saying if the Director had a huge budget he cannot creat an oscar worthy project...how very avante snob of you Gladiator was a VERY visceral experience and was also quite touching in an anger inducing and betrayal sort of way..you might think its easy to bring those types of emotions out and maybe for someone that hasnt seen a lot of this type of movie it is.. but in my experience it takes talent for someone to get that from me..Ill give Kudos when they are due and Gladiator was a worthy Oscar candidate.
Agree with this list, the Raging Bull snub for Ordinary People may be the worst of all time. Gangs of NY over Chicago should have been another no brainer. I can see Dances with Wolves winning it but I'd pick Goodfellas as well.
No, if a director has a huge budget he can make a good movie. There are plenty examples of that. My argument is that if a director attempts nothing new within its genre, rehashes the same plot points thrown over and over and falls into the typical traps of the same genre... then he did not succeed at making a Best Movie of the year (he made it Oscar worthy since the Academy chose, but not the best movie of the year). 1995 (braveheart's year) was a lame year in movies but The Usual Suspects was made that year, Emir Kusturica's Underground was made that year, Annaud's "City of Lost Children" was made that year, Richard III was made that year, Rob Roy (which is as good a movie as Braveheart), Twelve Monkeys,. In my opinion, and granted opinions are like you know... all those movies where better than Braveheart. As for Gladiator... that same year the movies released (that I feel where better) include: Dancer in the Dark, Magnolia, Amores Perros, In the Mood for Love (which not only is a better movie but is the bestest movie ever made), Memento, Quills, Requiem for a Dream, and traffic... actually In the Mood for Love and Dancer in the Dark being in this paragraph really is there to show that there where better movies than Gladiator released that year. Gladiator was just the biggest and the one that made more money (not that there's anything wrong with that)
I would go with Gladiator and Braveheart those years as well, and I think time will prove those to be great choices. I still can sit and watch all three hours of Braveheart, which I don't think was as cliche as you make it out to be at all. Both movies had great casts and performances and while being the best movie of the year is a subjective call, I think both can make the argument that they were. I think both stand the test of time. When you look at past winners some of them are just not movies that have stood the test of time, the great movies stand the test of time.
Ok... I'll admit to that I am a total snob (But you know I went to film school... I am trained to be a snob). I'll put it like this... in my snobbish taste of movies those two movies where not the best movies of those years. They where fine fun movies but not the best movies of that year.
Definitely agree, and Life is Beautiful was a fantastic movie. Sorry bro, but I thought American Beauty was great and didn't have a problem with its win. Same here.
i just like calling you a movie snob whenever the opportunity presents itself... you know i <3 you...
no way american beauty should've won over green mile imho....at all...ever...that movie was weird, and gross imo
I may get my Man Card revoked for saying this but if No Country for old men didnt win I wanted Juno to win. I thought it was hilarious. I didnt see there will be blood. But the milk shake skit on SNL was hillarious
IMO No Country For Old Men wasn't as great as it was made out to be, thought it was average at best. There Will Be Blood I thought was a great movie. BTW American Beauty was a masterpiece of a movie. PS I can watch The Departed all day I thought it was that good but then again I have a thing for gangster movies.
I haven't seen No Country or There Will Be Blood yet, but I will soon. Very much agree with you on the other two. The only thing about The Departed I disliked was the rat at the end. That was over the top, but the rest of the movie was outstanding IMO.
You mean like when Japanese baseball players who've been in the league 10 years come over here and win Rookie of the Year? Yeah, def not worthy
Then you are missing the unquestioned #2 seed in the Chuck Norris Region in the BADASS BRACKET. Anton Chigurh is one of the baddest badasses of alltime.
Yeah, I figured you must have a pretty high opinion of him given your obvious respect for the classic bad asses.
Why not add the actors that should not have won a Best Actor Oscar... I think the best example is Roberto Begnini winning over Ed Norton...
I absolutely hated The Departed. I agree with Quelonio. Edward Norton deserved an Oscar for American History X. I didn't think Roberto Begnini deserved it either.
I don't follow these thing very closely, but what I do know is the biggest "travesty" I'm aware of is Jack Lemmon not even being nominated for Glengarry Glen Ross. It's bad enough that the movie was snubbed.
The pacing was too slow, I have a hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio, there was too much violence, just for violence sake, and every other word out their mouths was an F bomb. Gangster movies can be made without all of that. The Godfather for instance. Besides Goodfellas, I'm just not too big of a fan of Scorsese.
The rat at the end with the state house or whatever its called in the background was the same thing that Costello was drawing in his picture when he met with Dicaprio at that bar.
I think the speed of the Godfather is at a snails pace so I dont know why you think the Departed was that slow.
I enjoyed the build up of the characters in the Godfather series. It was slow paced because there was just so much information. For as many Mob movies that I've seen, nothing IMO will ever come close to beating it.
Actually, I just saw "Michael Clayton" the other night and it blew both of those other films away for me. Best movie I've seen in a long, long time.
I hated Crash. I thought it was so manipulative that it bugged the hell out of me. I think Brokeback was a far superior film.
I saw Micheal Clayton and No Country and really liked both. Have not seen there will be blood yet (on my Netflix cue). I was glad that No Country won. I hope it gets more people to read Cormac McCarthy books.
