This is a simple post, with a simple question.
I spent a few minutes earlier today looking at the titles of films that were nominated for Best Picture since 2000. I only found five that I wanted to see again.
Five out of forty-five films.
So, here’s the question: Which of the films that were nominated Best Picture this decade actually deserved the honour? And which un-nominated films would you suggest deserved to be recognised?
The nominees are as follows, with the winners in capital letters:
2000
“GLADIATOR,” “Chocolat,” “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” “Erin Brockovich,” “Traffic”
2001
“A BEAUTIFUL MIND,” “Gosford Park,” “In the Bedroom,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,” “Moulin Rouge”
2002
“CHICAGO,” “Gangs of New York,” “The Hours,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers,” “The Pianist”
2003
“THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING,” “Lost In Translation,” “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World,” “Mystic River,” “Seabiscuit”
2004
“MILLION DOLLAR BABY,” “The Aviator,” “Finding Neverland,” “Ray,” “Sideways”
2005
“CRASH,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “Capote,” “Good Night, and Good Luck,” “Munich”
2006
“THE DEPARTED,” “Babel,” “Letters From Iwo Jima,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” “The Queen”
2007
“NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN,” “Atonement,” “Juno,” “Michael Clayton,”"There Will Be Blood”
2008
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” “Frost/Nixon,” “Milk,” “The Reader,” “Slumdog Millionaire”
- – -
- – -
(Photo at top: Oscar Party at the Community Centre Building off Roberts Way, by daveypea; Photo sourced by Jett who does not want the above photo to imply that the attendees of the Community Centre Oscar Party are undeserving of their Statues – he just loves the image)
Wait, are you suggesting that it's *film quality* that is the main reason a film gets nominated by the Academy for best picture? Guys, guys, it's politics and insiders, you know that. Imagine getting 30 screeners and realizing you only have 5 days to fill in your paperwork and mail it back. Do you think even 33% of Academy members watch every single film in the running for a nomination, let alone the actual final choice?
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? :-)
Of course, (and not wanting to speak for Prof. Dr. Gareth Higgins here, but I will), it's politics – the Oscars are a promotional device for an industry after all. The thing is with the Oscars is that they pretend that it's about 'quality' when it's nothing of the sort:
http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/01/07/are-acade…
+ out of Gareth's list – I'd only see again:
* 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)
God just looking over these again pisses me off.
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.
let the anger go Peter – you don't want to end up like me, a bitter film critic ;)
but yeah, gladiator am not fond of it's true – though it does have a nice shot of russell crowe's hand in wheat.
There are a couple years where I wouldn't want to see any of the films again and a couple where I'd see a few of them again:
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.
Mystic River was fine – but I don't need to see it again, know what I mean?
+ 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
I do kinda wish there was a true film standard awards show. Like, have a commity that are all required to see all the movies (have them all present at one screening of each one and take attendance to make sure everyone shows up). Because with all the movies out there, especially when you're looking back 20-30 years or more, its good to have some kind of benchmark to refer to for film quality. Unfortunatly, the oscars are not that show, leaving only imdb (which is TOO open, so you get “popular” movies recognized and less known ones overlooked), and maybe rottentomatos (which doesn't have enough reviews for older movies to be useful, although I suppose it'll be a good resource for future generations)
There must be some sort of real 'quality' awards show out there – mustn't there? I mean – are we gonna have to start one up at TFT??
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?
Am re-watching the Rings films at the moment and disagree with you Jett. They are very well crafted, performed and have a timeless quality that will stand the test of time. (But I guess ,as they say, time will tell.)
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.
Whilst I agree with everything you say about the IMDB250 I have to admit to having a soft spot for it. Abou five years ago (after a decade of rather sporadic film watching while the kids were growing up) I rekindled my love of movies and began to realise what huge gaps I had in my viewing. At about the same time I was introduced to the IMDB by a friend and so I decided the 250 list was a good tool for expanding my film experience and started watching all the ones I hadn't seen. While often amazed at some films being on the list at all (Ratatouille) it has plugged a lot of my viewing gaps, made me watch some films which are now amongst my personal favourites (Ikiru) and discover some little gems (Harold and Maude).
guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the ring pictures ;)
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.
Ikiru and Harold and Maude are wonderful, (wouldn't a version of 'My Dinner with Andre' starring Kurosawa and Ashby been great??)
+ the IMDB 250 = Leon? 35th greatest movie of all time? Really?
Really hard to go back, because it's hard to remember everything that came out and when.
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.
I generally do not watch pictures again, but of these I've watched Gangs of New York, the two LOTR films and CTHD again. I might watch Traffic again, but would rather see Traffik for the first time.
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.
I generally do not watch pictures again, but of these I've watched Gangs of New York, the two LOTR films and CTHD again. I might watch Traffic again, but would rather see Traffik for the first time.
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.
These are the films I will watch/have watched several times, many of which I own:
2000
Gladiator, it's historical inaccuracies aside, is gorgeous to look at and good escapist fun on a rainy weekend afternoon.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is one of the most beautiful, poetic films of the decade, and I wish LOTR was made more in this style — at turns romantic and sad.
2001
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, again good escapist fun.
2002
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, see above.
2003
A qualified “none of the above”. Even though I own ROTK, it find it such a slog. Though it's fun to watch w/ my wife who's not a Tolkien geek like me.
2004
The Aviator, one of the most exuberant celebrations of individual achievement I have ever seen, and an honest excoriation of the evils of corporate-government collaboration.
2005
Munich, more for its spy thriller antics than its pale attempt at moral relativism. Also, very solidly directed, acted, shot.
2006
The Departed, which I liken to a modern American tragic opera. If you watched it as a silent film, you will still feel the power of this masterpiece.
Little Miss Sunshine, to help me keep things in perspective from time to time.
2007
No Country for Old Men, only because having seen it twice and read novel as well, I'm able to look beyond the devastating emotional punch it serves up and study the incredible craftsmanship that went into making this. Among its other well-deserved praises, it is a masterpiece of cinematography and editing.
Michael Clayton, a very good study in screenwriting economy: what's not seen is more important to the story.
2008
Nada. Haven't seen any of them, and don't plan on it.
And since we're on the subject…
2009
District 9, on of the most exciting sci-fi films I've seen in many a year. What an awesome ride. I saw in the theater, and I hadn't felt that amped up about sci-fi since I saw Aliens back in 1986.
Up, I can watch the first 20 minutes over and over for the rest of my life.