Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003

    The Academy in the 1990s What should have won! page 1

    The Academy is sometimes right -- in that they sometimes agree with me the all-knowing movie God RGA. Yes you're hearing it from the Legend (in my own mind) absolute truth as to what should have won the Academy award for best picture if only they were as smart as your's truly.

    You may cast your picks as well but remember I'm right so nanananana

    I give the year - the WINNER is in bold and the other nominated films below it. A HAPPY face means the Academy Awards managed to get it right, bang on, for a change in that they agreed with my CORRECT choice. A SAD face means that they nominated the CORRECT choice but picked the wrong one. A MAD face is that they didn't even NOMINATE the CORRECT Best choice the bloody dim bulbs that they are . (There is a modest error rate of possible films worthy that I have not seen)

    The Godfather, Part III

    Yes the Academy this year didn't too bad. They managed to nominate the TRUE best film Goodfellas and even managed to nominate some interesting efforts like Awakenings and Dances with Wolves. Per usual they chose the epic over substance and deep resonance. Goodfellas was the movie for Scorcese who should have won director and Film. Awakenings made my top 10 that year. Dances with Wolves was decent hollywood fair.

    Beauty and the Beast
    The Prince of Tides

    The decade didn't start out too well blowing Goodfellas and it didn't get any better in 1991. The immensely popular if ultimately uninspired and uninsightful and over the top hollywood cheese won the day over the monumental JFK. Unfortunately kevin Costner's win the previous year may have impeded JFK of the win -- well it fits with Stone's conspiracy theory mind so why not? Silence had two strong heart of the movie performances which carried the actual vapidness of the by the numbers plot through the to Academy gold. the made for HBO movie Citizen X or Atom Egoyan's "Felicia's Journey" are vastly superior films to Silence of the Lambs on the topic of serial killers and few have seen either one

    The Crying Game
    A Few Good Men
    Howards End
    Scent of a Woman

    What a crappy bunch of films for 1992. From this wreck of a list my choice would have been the Crying Game but the true winner for 1992 was Malcolm X. Though to be honest even Malcolm X doesn't crack RGA's top 200 films. Weak ass year. Unforgiven was a decent film -- its win certainly didn;t bother me because to be frank it didn;t beat anything of real importance.
    Last edited by RGA; 09-14-2005 at 08:06 PM.

  2. #2
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Edit Part 2

    The Fugitive
    In the Name of the Father
    The Piano
    The Remains of the Day

    Even the Academy could not possibly screw this one up. and they managed not to despite rumblings in some of the artsy fartsy circles that uneven and logically troubled Piano was going to make a late surge in the Director category. The rest of the films on the list occupied place holders for the obviously superior near perfect film that managed to be historically even handed and retain elements from the keneally novel like the girl in the Red Coat -- which was not a Spielberg addition like a few bone brained moron critics liked to use as an attack of sentiment. The only thing that detracted from the 1993 Academy awards were the following: Ralph Fiennes was utterly Robbed of Best supporting actor, Embeth Davidtz not only didn't win the award for best supporting actress(Helen hirsch - Schindler's list) which she so richly deserved -- she didn't even get nominated, and Ben Kingsley who was second only to Ralph Fiennes didn;t even get nominated. Lastly Anthiny Hopkins who won the Award for best actor in Silence of the Lambs was far better in Remains of the Day and loses to another over the top hanks performance. It should have been Hopkins or Neeson - Bleggh. But they got the film right for a change.

    Four Weddings and a Funeral
    Pulp Fiction
    Quiz Show
    The Shawshank Redemption

    This was the best year for film during the 1990s coming off what would later be discovered the best film of the 1990s in Schindler's List -- oh what a few years in film. Forrest Gump was a safe choice and to be fair to Academy Voters it was a fully entertaining film that would appeal to the largest numbers of voters. And even though Pulp Fiction was the ACTUAL best film of the year it likely put off too many viewers with its course language and who the heck is that weird Tarrantino guy. It was also Unfortunate that the other MUCH BETTER than Forrest Gump films "Quiz Show" and "The Shawshank Redemption" Both in my top 100 managed to come out all in the same year as the very good Gump. I wasn't really mad though in the Gump selection -- the Academy voters like the American voting Public seems to have an affinity for dimwitted individuals.

    Apollo 13
    Il Postino
    Sense and Sensibility

    1995 was a train wreck. To go from what was there in 1994 to this pile of Hollywood trash was quite a shame. The Academy managed to pick the best film of the films they nominated. Braveheart was everything that Gladiator was not..reasonably intelligent well choreographed fight sequences good visuals and slam bang entertainment on a nearly mythos level. And Despite this they managed to miss the best film of the year Leaving Las Vegas The logic was idiotic as well. Leaving las Vegas was nominated for Actor Actress and Director. For that matter so was Dead Man Walking. The only film that deserved a nomination was Braveheart so at least they managed to get something right in not giving it to any of the other weaklings they nominated. But the Academy was too chicken to vote political or on touchy subjects.
    Last edited by RGA; 09-14-2005 at 08:07 PM.

  3. #3
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Part 3

    Jerry Maguire
    Secrets and Lies

    Not a bad year - only jerry Maguire and Shine stick out as dumb choices for nominations given the vastly superior films that could have been there and were not such as Trainspotting, Sling Blade, or Breaking the Waves. The English Patient has grown on me on subsequent viewings and was another safe laurence of Arabia kind of Choice. Interestingly Ralph Fiennes also starred in "Lawrence After Arabia" with the british Doctor in the tv series Star Trek Deep Space Nine (His name is not coming to me at the moment). The ever so slight edge for me this year went to Secrets and Lies This was the tougher choice no doubt viewed too small and played a touch like a soap. best Actor SHOULD have been Billy bob Thornton...but I guess you can only vote for one slow person once -- but hey the Voting public did it twice -- c'mon Academy follow the pattern would ya!

    L.A. Confidential
    As Good As It Gets
    Good Will Hunting
    The Full Monty

    Man the Academy screwed this one up - well sort of. not a great year for movies and it's tough not to nominate the highest grossing film to that point in history. L.A. Confidential was better but it's still a kind of flat movie. Over the years I have grown fond of Good Will Hunting which seems more to fit with my preference. Great movie it's not but it's the best of this lot. Titanic would be my 5th choice of this group.

    Life is Beautifu (Best Foreign Language Film winner)
    Saving Private Ryan
    The Thin Red Line

    First and foremost I will say that I greatly admired and liked Shakespeare in Love and it si more apprciable to those who have studies Shakespeare -- actors vote in the Academy and this is an actor's movie. This was a solid nominated group but the nod for me goes to Saving Private Ryan or Life is Beautiful. I have these two as a virtual Tie and at present would need convincing for one over the other. SPR had the visuals -- and has gotten better on subsequent viewings -- i did not care that much for the film the first time I saw it...At least the film that transpires after that incredible opening sequence. but i found it to be far richer than it gets credit for. Life is Beautiful walks a dangerous line mixing comedy with the holocaust but the comedic aspects were a front to hide the reality. The film for me has perhaps the slight edge for managing to pull it off and staying away from goof ball sequences that SPR could not get away from in the two bookeneds of its running time.

    The Cider House Rules
    The Green Mile
    The Insider
    The Sixth Sense

    Yes I'm happy that the best film won. I'm even pleased that the Academy had the guts to vote for a film with this kind of subject matter than the usual it's an epic so let's pick that. Kudos for picking the best film of the year. Now the mad part is not picking The War Zone as the Only decent serious contender. I mean The Green Mile -- You can do better than this Academy

  4. #4
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
    Erin Brockovich

    Well let's start by saying that Gladiator not only isn't Award material it's not even a good movie. Stupid selection for a relatively lame film. but they needed a token epic and this one was as crumby as they get. So i am mad that Gladiator is the worst film on the list of nominees and handedly trounced by Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon but mad that the best film of the year Requiem for a Dream was bypassed. Uggh.

    Gosford Park
    In the Bedroom
    The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
    Moulin Rouge

    Another weak pick. A Beautiful Mind was largely shallow and one sided, Moulin Rouge was visually impressive but vapid, Gossford park was complete Drivel and LOTR was to be blunt boring and lacked character development or a sense of any real depth. In the Bedroom was the best film of this tired crop of rejects and Monster's Ball was the best film of the year. heck even Shrek was better than the 4 rubbish nominees!

    Gangs of New York
    The Hours
    The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
    The Pianist

    Well this is when i started to see way less movies due to time commitments. I was happy that they chose Chicago because unlike Moulin Rouge Chicago actually had a solid story rooted in its Music. It's not a great film but then neither was the competition so it practically wins by default. LOTR 2 was much better this time around - pacing kicked it up a notch and I was not sitting there in an endless mire of being bashed over the head about how important the ring is -- yeah yeah I get it already power corrupts Luke avoid the dark side yes hmm. Ohh wrong toad like creature sorry. Smegal bad ring blah blah blah. The Pianist was solid. Gangs of New York -- put a knife in it - which is what they should have done to the screenplay!

    Lost In Translation
    Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
    Mystic River

    Well the fanboys got their win for the overlong is it over now, how about now, No? How many freaking endings is this bloody movie going to have...20 minutes later ahh finally the self indulgent one note theme with badly handled female characters and tired special effects to save the paper thin story for 9 hours is finally over! Ohh my God they're going to add deleted footage for even MORE time to the DVD -- you must be freaking kidding me thing they could have told the same damn story with the same level of depth in 3 hours -- but then that would not get the billions for the powers that be. With all that Special effects it is Seabiscuit that has any real Heart and Lost in Translation that has any real head. My vote goes to Seabiscuit from this group. Hollywood done right may be shmaltzy but the this one manages to pull it off at the finish line. It's old time epic feel of the human spirit overcoming, the down on your luck rise to greatness film that puts few horseshoes wrong. But it is Monster that is best film of this year and in second place Kill Bill volume 1 -- another one that should be here is 21 Grams. These were close so Seabiscuit would have made me happy.
    Last edited by RGA; 09-14-2005 at 08:19 PM.

  5. #5
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The Crying Game
    A Few Good Men
    Howards End
    Scent of a Woman

    What a crappy bunch of films for 1992. From this wreck of a list my choice would have been the Crying Game but the true winner for 1992 was Malcolm X. Though to be honest even Malcolm X doesn't crack RGA's top 200 films. Weak ass year. Unforgiven was a decent film -- its win certainly didn;t bother me because to be frank it didn;t beat anything of real importance.
    Yes, Malcolm X is best picture of the bunch. I like westerns but never could get into Unforgiven. Malcolm X had the same energy as Godfather movies. One feel like it was filmed in that era with excellnt cinemagraphy and story line

  6. #6
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Interesting Topic.

    I expect the Academy to screw up the nominees and the winner, it helps numb the frustration a bit.
    For the most part I don't care, though how Dances With Wolves, Titanic, and Forest Gump ever won will always be a mystery to me.
    While I enjoyed Gladiator, I can't believe it was a winner either...There was nothing new about it, the acting wasn't anything spectacular. Oh well. Crouching Tiger wasn't for everyone.

    I loved American Beauty, and A Beautiful Mind, so I could live with those picks.

    Return of the King was an odd pick. I didnt' think it was the best of the 3 by any stretch, but there weren't really any clear winners that year, so why not. It really falls into that anti-academy genre though, which made it very surprising that the Academy picked it. I would have voted for Monster, but maybe the though of thousands of fanatics with homemade tinfoil swords and ork costumes storming the stage in a violent riot persuaded them.

    The Shawshank Redemption not winning was a travesty IMO. None of the other nominees have withstood the test of time as well IMO.

  7. #7
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    I can agree with someone taking Shawshank Redemption over Pulp Fiction. Shawshank sufferred froma terrible title and it tanked at the box office on its initial release. It was said at the time that Women killed Shawshank because they generally don't like prison films. However, Shawshank slowly gained a reputation and had a rare second release and has done massive business since on home video. It's tough to argue a case where this should not win. Pulp Fiction turned the genre around and created a new one which so many films have since copied -- Run Lola Run off the top of my head, among others. Lock stock and two smoking barels or whatever it was called.

    Shawshank has a more human story and will resonate longer and deeper with many people. Still Pulp Fiction gets my vote (albeit slight) due to its re-interpretation of the past genre and changing the film industry. I find it highly re-watchable and incredibly inventive.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts