-
Website
http://www.thefilmtalk.com/ -
Original page
http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/02/16/oscars-worthy-deserved-undeserved-unworthy/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
OneLittleBird
11 comments · 1 points
-
StanleyRumm
123 comments · 3 points
-
K_Ann
11 comments · 1 points
-
Dale
14 comments · 1 points
-
TimHeaney
35 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Christmas Day Shock! Sherlock Holmes is Worth Seeing!
1 day ago · 3 comments
-
TFT 105 – AVATAR with Glenn Kenny and Armond White
3 days ago · 4 comments
-
TFT 105 – The Films of the Decade
1 week ago · 16 comments
-
The 10 Most Underrated Films of the Decade
3 weeks ago · 27 comments
-
81 Films of the Decade
3 weeks ago · 24 comments
-
Christmas Day Shock! Sherlock Holmes is Worth Seeing!
Having said that cynical comment, let me say that out of that list I'd watch the following again: Gladiator, Crouching Tiger, Lost in Translation, The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Sideways, Good Night and Good Luck, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen, Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire. That's more than five, right? :-)
Dave Taylor, proprietor, @FilmBuzz
http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/01/07/are-acade...
* Nothing from the 2000 list
* 2001: Moulin Rouge
* 2002: Gangs of New Yrok
* 2003: Nothing - in fact that's a terrible year
* 2004: The Aviator
* 2005: Brokeback Mountain
* 2006: The Departed
* 2007: No Country for Old Men / There Will Be Blood
* 2008: None of them, (though Milk is a fine and worthy drama - but it doesn't need to be seen again - see the doc 'The Times of Harvey Milk' instead)
I can't believe Gladiator won best picture.
That movie ticks me off so much.
Not only is it horribly historically inaccurate, but the very premise is so unbelievably retarded.
Like the emperor of Rome wouldn't have just executed Russel Crowe as soon as he realized who he was (Like the crowd of Rome would give a damn, they'd forget about the whole thing in a week, it certainly wouldn't hurt the emperor's popularity). Not to mention that the movie isn't even entertaining to watch, with only maybe one-two good battle sequences and pretty weak special effects work. God I hate that movie.
And looking at their competition, the Lord of the Rings movies should have won every year they were nominated.
but yeah, gladiator am not fond of it's true - though it does have a nice shot of russell crowe's hand in wheat.
2000: Nothing (Erin Brockovich: wtf?)
2001: Nothing
2002: Nothing
2003: Lost in Translation, Mystic River (Love both of these; Jett no love for Mystic River?!?)
2004: Million Dollar Baby, Finding Neverland
2005: Crash
2006: Little Miss Sunshine
2007: No Counrty for Old Men, Juno
2008: Slumdog
That's nine. And I'll use this oppertunity to say that I don't like The Lord of the Rings. There, I said it.
+ The Lord of the Rings pictures are an odd one = would have loved to have seen what John Boorman would have done with them (think he was attached at one point to the project?)
+ they look cheap and cheesy - underpopulated and silly - I mean, they're fun pictures - but I don't know how 'watchable' they'll be int he future
Was pleasantly surprised to see that there were quite a lot of good films in the list, but unfortunately some years would be a hard choice and others have very little.
Think the biggest joke of all was when Chicago won - ridiculous.
and actually i have a soft spot for Chicago - really enjoyed it when i saw it, though i still feel bad when i heard that a dear friend of mine had one of the worst film experiences of her life when she went to see it - didn't know it was a musical - and was thinking, why are all these people singing? really wasn't in the mood for a musical and ended up having to grit her teeth for 2 hours.
and for the love of God don't even get me started on the IMDB lists - whenever I'm feeling too calm read their top films - just to get my blood pumping - heck, let's have a look right now:
1. 9.1 The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 406,984
2. 9.1 The Godfather (1972) 340,678
3. 9.0 The Godfather: Part II (1974) 196,754
4. 8.9 Buono, il brutto, il cattivo., Il (1966) 118,779
5. 8.9 Pulp Fiction (1994) 335,356
6. 8.9 The Dark Knight (2008) 345,430
7. 8.8 Schindler's List (1993) 222,221
8. 8.8 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) 170,213
9. 8.8 12 Angry Men (1957) 85,659
10. 8.8 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Shawshank Redemption top film of all time.
12 Angry Men. ? Yes, it's a great little pic by Lumet - but in the top 10 of all films?? of all time? what?
The Dark Knight??
Historically this sites/tech have been used by younger gen. perhaps? as they get older = will we see some slight maturation of taste?
+ the IMDB 250 = Leon? 35th greatest movie of all time? Really?
Went back and looked at some of the films of 2000, since it seemed to be such a "down" year for really good films - I think if I had to pick one that I really enjoyed because of the story, the way it was shot, soundtrack, etc. etc., it might be "Billy Elliot".
There are tons of films I'm sure I didn't see, and part of the problem w/ Hollywood is that you probably miss a great deal of good films because they aren't run anywhere except for some small art house that isn't close by.
2002 burns me up, The Pianist, LOTR and Gangs of New York are all better films. The Pianist and Gangs are very, abundantly, clearly better films. I don't even watch the Oscars anymore.