The real Best Picture, 1994
-
Hdny42 — 11 years ago(April 21, 2014 12:20 PM)
I have nothing against Four Weddings and a Funeral, but it is unquestionably (in my mind) the weakest of the five nominees for Best Picture. I actually like the movie, but calling a movie weaker than four all-time greats is not calling it a bad movie. I'll give you an example: I am a New York Yankees fan, and my favorite all-time player is Mariano Rivera (who is now retired). I think Mo is the 5th greatest Yankee in history, because the top 4 are Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, and Mickey Mantle. It is not a slight against Mo to point out that he is 5th best (at bestsome have him slightly lower on the list). I personally don't think FWaaF is an all-time great film, nor is it one of my favorites, but I DO like it, and it is quite a good movie. But I don't see a problem with calling it the worst of the five of 1994 when The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, and Quiz Show are the other four. Hell I DO love Quiz Show and it IS one of my favorites, and I personally enjoy it more than Forrest Gump, but I believe Quiz Show is not as good a movie as the top 3 of 1994A top 3 so strong that if you spread it out and released the movies 1994-1996 you might have 3 straight best picture winners.
"Well if you wanted to make Serak the Preparer cry, mission accomplished." -
!!!deleted!!! (33407653) — 11 years ago(April 25, 2014 12:30 AM)
I wrote my post because I was tired of reading such negative comments on
Four Weddings and a Funeral
, which I found entertaining and charming.
I really disliked
Forest Gump
because I found it
anti
intellectual. I guess it was so popular because it showed that any moron can be a huge success.
Pulp Fiction
introduced a major talent and it was undeniably influential, but who really gives a sh*t that they call a Big Mac a La Royale in France?
This
is great writing? Well, not in my book. And why jumble up the narrative? At least it was done for a (very successful) reason in
Irrersible
. Here it is pointless. Still,
Pulp Fiction
is compelling film-making and Tarentino certainly deserved the award for best director.
I like
The Shawshank Redemption
but am somewhat mystified as to why so many of its fans regard it so highly. It is entertaining but, like most Frank Daramount films, it is overlong and I personally do not regard it as any kind of great film. Good, but not great.
For me
Quiz Show
was the best because it was
about something
. In what was undoubtedly the best line of the year Ralph Fiennes says
anyone who thinks money is ever just money couldn't have much
of it
. This was the best script of the year. -
tbickle84 — 11 years ago(July 02, 2014 08:18 AM)
Forrest Gump is anti-intellectual?
That's one of the most philosophical, layered, beautiful films ever made. It also has not lost any of its power over the years. It's as good as it ever was. A true masterpiece. One of few films that actually deserves its oscars.
Whether you like it better than Pulp or Shawshank is purely subjective because they're very different films and all great. -
!!!deleted!!! (33407653) — 11 years ago(July 19, 2014 02:15 AM)
What is so intellectual about
Forrest Gump
? As one critic noted it ia a film in which the character who gets really involved with the important issues of the 60's, Women's Rights etc., Robin, suffers and has an early death, while the character who does virtually nothing substantial, the moonwalk and the smiley face are the two things I remember, is showered with riches. I can't say that I hate this film as much as I did when I first saw it, but I don't like it very much. For me it illustrates the disdain that Americans have for the intellectual (Vote for the man you want to have a beer with, not the smart guy who graduated summa cum laude). As one of those "intellectuals" I personally found the film insulting. What's the advantage of being smart when any moron can be a huge success? -
smoko — 10 years ago(May 31, 2015 01:19 AM)
@nyrunner101
while the character who does virtually nothing substantial, the moonwalk and the smiley face are the two things I remember, is showered with riches.
I agree with the critic's point (though I like
Forrest Gump
anyway) but I think you're confusing Michael Jackson with Elvis Presley: -
kwongers — 21 years ago(April 13, 2004 07:43 PM)
I just watched "Quiz Show" in school, but I haven't seen the other four nominees, although I see bits of "Four Weddings" when I'm channel-surfing. I thought "Quiz Show" was a great movie; reminds me why I like Ralph Fiennes so much. He's a great actor.
-
bbgun5310 — 21 years ago(April 22, 2004 12:10 PM)
Why would it matter how many films a director has made? Even if it's their first, if it's good enough to win the Oscar, who gives a crap if it's the first film the director has made
Maybe you are talking about the Best Director category, but either way, if someone is deserving they should win the award. -
bbgun5310 — 21 years ago(April 23, 2004 08:22 AM)
oacoo, you continue to make no sense. According to that logic, when Pulp Fiction was released, everyone should have thought"Well, that's a hell of a good film, but let's not heap too much praise or too many awards because you know what will happen to Quentinhis next few films will go straight into the crapper because he'll be so full of himself!!"
-
bbgun5310 — 21 years ago(April 24, 2004 03:14 PM)
That is beside the point. Your original statement was
"I'm not one of Pulp Fiction's greatest fans, but on top of that I don't believe directors should win the Oscar for only their 2nd film, however good it may be. (I felt the same way about Lost in Translation.)"
That's what I was responding to. It's just very flawed logic. According to you, Orson Welles should have been ignored for Citizen Kane (his first full length feature film).
And by the way, Quentin didn't win Best Director for Pulp Fiction, Zemeckis took the award for the Gumpmiester -
Alexander_Tsuschka — 21 years ago(May 15, 2004 06:02 AM)
Overall, I too think that 1994 was one of the best years in the movie business.
The Oscar fo best picture should have went to The Shawshank Redemption or to Quiz Show as they both are more profound and meaningful that Forrest Gump.
I think that Tarantino would have deserved the Oscar fo Best Direction (now, he may never get it) and and that Tim Robbins should have been competting John Turturro and Ralph Fiennes for the Best Actor Oscar (which Hanks didn't quite deserve to get for two years in a row). But that's just my opinion.
"I am just unwillingly disturbed belly-button." -
mykungfuistrong — 16 years ago(July 12, 2009 09:35 AM)
Oh, come on, really? Try comparing Murray circa Stripes versus Murray in L.i.T. You can't deny he's grown so much as an actor. His performances these days are capable of so much subtlety and pathos. He's really become an actor capable of so much more than bluster and slapstick (although that particular brand of comedy worked pretty well in films like Scrooged and Ghostbusters!) Don't be a hater! lol
-
mpoconnor7 — 14 years ago(September 26, 2011 03:30 PM)
What has Bill Murray done since Lost in Translation? It's not like he did a Leslie Nielsen (in reverse) and suddenly became a dramatic actor from that point forward after being a comedian for more than 25 years. Nor did his Oscar nomination lead to very much acting work (comedic or dramatic) since then. It's like when Dan Aykroyd got an Oscar nomination for Driving Miss Daisy, it didn't help his career very much as he didn't transition to being a fulltime dramatic actor, although I think he had the talent to do so.