Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:24 pm**

[rant]Titanic, hands down. That movie did not deserve 11 academy awards. Why? Because it is nothing compared to Ben-Hur (I'm not even sure ROTK deserves to be on the same level as Benh-Hur). Titanic might have deserved some special effects awards, but everything else about that movie sucked.[/rant]

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:25 pm**

taraswizard wrote:Cail wrote
I think Hopkins deserved every bit of acclaim he got for his role, but I think the rest of the film was rather flat.
SotL is engaging, exciting, and dramatic. IT IS NOT FLAT! in any sense of the word.

However, travesties. Nominees On golden pond, Reds, Raiders of the lost ark, Atlantic City all nominees and not winners. All nominees in the same year but all were passed over for the much less outstanding film Chariots of fire.

Regarding Denzel's win in 2002 for Training day, well it was case of guilt on the part of the Academy, since a few years earlier the Academy had passed over Mr. Washington for his leading role in MalcolmX

Don't forget Washington was passed over for Hurricane as well. I tend to agree that the role in Training Day was not as good as Malcolm X, and the Oscar may have been a make-up award, but I don't want to take away from someone whom I consider to be a fine actor.

As to Chariots, I don't remember Reds or Atlantic City, and obviously I'm a huge fan of Raider, but trust me - Chariots was a much better movie than On Golden Pond.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:34 pm**

SotL was a relatively rote thriller with an inspired performance by Anthony Hopkins.

Denzel takes a lot of crap roles (like Virtuosity), but he's one helluva actor. He was robbed when he didn't win for X.

Chariots of Fire was an amazing film, deserved everything it got.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:10 am**

I agree about Washington. It was unbelievable that he didn't get the Oscar for Malcolm X. I don't think I stayed to watch the rest of the show after that particular travesty.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:42 pm**

dANdeLION wrote:I believe this thread, combined with the fact that people actually seem to care, is the worst transvestite in Oscar history. Well, other than the time Casablanca beat out Plan 9.......

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:44 pm**

dANdeLION wrote:I still can't believe Adam West didn't get it in '66 for his Batman movie....come on, the shark repellent scene was brilliant!

And his brilliant social commentary about alcoholism:

"remember Robin, alcoholics are people too."

I mean, he was ahead of his time. People talk about how Uhura and Kirk kissing being avant garde genius, but West is a great man.

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:19 pm**

dlbpharmd wrote:Thought we could hash out the many times that the Academy Awards went to the wrong movie, actor, director etc....

I offer this to get the ball rolling - IMO the worst travesty was when Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan. Now don't get me wrong, I do like Shakespeare, it has some great acting and the dialogue is wonderful. But SPR was head and shoulders above SIL in terms of importance - SPR is a movie that will stand the test of time.

I used to feel the same, but after watching SiL...it's just magnificent and wonderful, finishing well...SPR is SPR, but I kind of felt like the end was a little disappointing...

For the thread topic, I'd go with Gladiator winning Best Picture, period. It was pretty good, and fun, but trudged at times and I just kind of wanted it to end...Traffic was a better film.

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:44 am**

matrixman wrote:Excellent topic, dlbpharmd!

I totally agree about Saving Private Ryan. How it ended up losing Best Picture to that other movie is an unfathomable mystery.

Some other sour notes with Oscar:

Stanley Kubrick's Paths Of Glory (1957) was a great war (or anti-war) film that received zero Oscar nominations, while Best Picture went to David Lean's glamorous WWII epic, Bridge On The River Kwai.

Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove (1964) is simply the best and most scathing satire that I have ever seen. This was, I think, the movie that got Kubrick accused of being "anti-American." Amazingly enough, it was actually nominated, though Best Picture went to a safer choice: My Fair Lady.

Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) remains in my book the greatest sci-fi movie ever made. It received no nomination for Best Picture, while the musical Oliver! took home the Oscar. Kubrick did at least get nominated for Best Director, and 2001 did win an Oscar for its visual effects--talk about a no-brainer.

Kenneth Branagh's exciting adaptation of Henry V (1989) deserved to be Best Picture, but it wasn't even nominated in that category. The Oscar went to the boring and inconsequential Driving Miss Daisy. The Academy was asleep at the wheel. Zzzzzz...

... I believe David Lean was just trashed. I cannot abide that. Lean was a genius easily on par with Kubrik, and Bridge on the River Kwai is an absolute classic. Lawrence of Arabia is one of my favorite movies of all time. That and you can HARDLY call Bridge on the River Kwai glamerous. All the heroes die in the end over a damn bridge they were forced to build in a forced labor camp in Southeast asia. It's not a typical war movie. Its a deep, well made, well acted epic movie about the ambiguity of war. (Paths of Glory has similar themes)

The 2007 awards failed to recognize all 5 of my favorite movies of the year. (I don't understand why American Gangster got swept under the rug that year)

And WALL*E got boned HARD this year for sure.

Posted: **Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:54 pm**

American Gangster was a very 'good' film. But only good, there weren't any ultra-memorable scenes or ultra (Training Day/Insider) performances.

Wall*E deserved an Oscar nom. for best pic over BenjaminButt.

I think Kwai is just slightly better than Glory.

Strangelove is the greatest comedy/satire of all time, but these never get BestPic nominations.

Still think Ryan gets really boring at times.

Posted: **Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:45 pm**

matrixman wrote:I totally agree about Saving Private Ryan. How it ended up losing Best Picture to that other movie is an unfathomable mystery.

I have a theory that the Academy (largely filled with people associated with movies and acting) was enamored with Shakespeare In Love because it was about a young Shakespeare. Touch stone material, especially since it was very good.

At the time, I'd been doing quite a bit of community theatre and all the actors (several of which were movie buffs) would talk about as the Oscars approached was SIL. When I brought up SPR, it was "just a war movie."

Posted: **Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:43 pm**

SiL is just excellent. You have a great script. You have a near perfect cast of excellent actors giving excellent performances: Dench, Paltrow, easily Affleck's best performance, a mesmerizingly fun and amazing Rush, Fienes is pitch perfect for the film, the art direction, cinematography, sound, music - the whole damn production was nearly pitch perfect. It had a bitter-sweet ending that goes from very real to very ethereal - I'm gushing, but I just can't say enough about how fun and interesting and well done this film is. I absolutely love it and it gets better each time I see it. I know it's a light hearted affair - and believe me, I'm usually not into the lighter side of film - it's just magnificent. Did I mention the casting? Perfect. And the script - the mirroring of Shak' and his play? And it works?!

Posted: **Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:30 pm**

SiL is indeed an excellent film, and I also enjoy each viewing. But will it stand the test of time in the way that SPR has? I don't think so.

Posted: **Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:52 pm**

Non-serious films usually don't.

Posted: **Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:08 am**

The Dreaming wrote:
matrixman wrote:Excellent topic, dlbpharmd!

I totally agree about Saving Private Ryan. How it ended up losing Best Picture to that other movie is an unfathomable mystery.

Some other sour notes with Oscar:

Stanley Kubrick's Paths Of Glory (1957) was a great war (or anti-war) film that received zero Oscar nominations, while Best Picture went to David Lean's glamorous WWII epic, Bridge On The River Kwai.

Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove (1964) is simply the best and most scathing satire that I have ever seen. This was, I think, the movie that got Kubrick accused of being "anti-American." Amazingly enough, it was actually nominated, though Best Picture went to a safer choice: My Fair Lady.

Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) remains in my book the greatest sci-fi movie ever made. It received no nomination for Best Picture, while the musical Oliver! took home the Oscar. Kubrick did at least get nominated for Best Director, and 2001 did win an Oscar for its visual effects--talk about a no-brainer.

Kenneth Branagh's exciting adaptation of Henry V (1989) deserved to be Best Picture, but it wasn't even nominated in that category. The Oscar went to the boring and inconsequential Driving Miss Daisy. The Academy was asleep at the wheel. Zzzzzz...
... I believe David Lean was just trashed. I cannot abide that. Lean was a genius easily on par with Kubrik, and Bridge on the River Kwai is an absolute classic. Lawrence of Arabia is one of my favorite movies of all time. That and you can HARDLY call Bridge on the River Kwai glamerous. All the heroes die in the end over a damn bridge they were forced to build in a forced labor camp in Southeast asia. It's not a typical war movie. Its a deep, well made, well acted epic movie about the ambiguity of war. (Paths of Glory has similar themes)

I respect your admiration for Bridge on the River Kwai as well as your defense of the film. My intent was to emphasize the Oscar snubbing of Kubrick, not to slight David Lean.

As for Saving Private Ryan, I'll concede that it has slow moments in the middle. But I won't concede much else. SPR had a seismic impact on me, and I don't think I'm alone. Eleven years later, I still shake my head in amazement at what Spielberg achieved with this movie.

Posted: **Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:46 am**

ItisWritten wrote: At the time, I'd been doing quite a bit of community theatre and all the actors (several of which were movie buffs) would talk about as the Oscars approached was SIL. When I brought up SPR, it was "just a war movie."

That's funny, because SiL was "just a chick flick."

SPR, of course, was one of the greatest movies of its decade, let alone its year.

Posted: **Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:22 pm**

It has one of the greatest openings ever, I'll give you that. Technically awesome in all areas. All the fight scenes were just great in different ways. But...Matt Damon? R u serious? Very good film. Just...the "chick flick" was a marvel...and maybe it's easier to relate if you've done some junior acting, too.

Posted: **Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:52 pm**

Shakespeare in Love was almost instantly forgettable for me. An extremely lightweight movie.

Saving Private Ryan has great battle scenes and nothing else worth any praise. Grossly over-rated.

Neither deserved a best picture Oscar, though if it was a choice between the two, then Ryan stands head and shoulders above Shakespeare in Love.

Kevin's Watch

Academy Award Travesties (NOT transvestites!)

Re: Oscar travesties

Re: Academy Award Travesties (NOT transvestites!)