The real Best Picture, 1994
-
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.
-
d_henderson1810 — 14 years ago(September 25, 2011 06:25 AM)
Fiennes was great in this. In fact, if we are going to gripe about Oscars, I think that both Ralph Fiennes and John Turraro should have been nominated for acting awards for "Quiz Show". Do you agree?
-
MisterBizzones — 21 years ago(May 24, 2004 02:16 AM)
I finally saw this the other night and was thoroughly impressed. Apart from the fact that the third act is a little anticlimactic, I can see why Quiz Show received the accolades it did. I was especially impressed by Rob Morrow - why isn't that dude more of a name?