10. The English Patient (1996)
Even though I kinda like this movie, it was overlong, dull, and the acting isn't Oscar worthy. I know, I know, that was a weak year for film, and they had to pick somebody, but why not Fargo?
9. Around the World in Eighty Days (1956)
Another film I enjoyed, but definitely not the best choice for Best Picture. This was up against The Ten Commandments, Giant, and The King and I, and any three of them would have been better picks for Best Picture (As for Friendly Persuasion... I don't think anyone remembers that film.)
8. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
The final movie on this list I thought was pretty good, but you know the drill, a soft and decent romance VS. one of the greatest war films of all time, Saving Private Ryan, it's bound to create a few controversies here and there.
7. An American in Paris (1951)
While I did enjoy PARTS of this film, and Gene Kelly is always amazing, the story, characters, and songs in this movie could have been improved GREATLY. The worst thing about this film: If this didn't get the award for Best Picture, the Academy might have considered giving a nomination to Singin' in the Rain.
6. The Last Emperor (1987)
Alright, this is where my list starts to get controversial. The Last Emperor wasn't up against any real ground-breaking movies, so of course it was going to win, but I found it so dull and way longer than it needed to be. Sure, the direction is good, and the main character is developed well, it still can't save this film.
5. The Departed (2006)
Another weak year for film, so the Academy decided to give the Best Picture award to Scorsese, not the film itself, which is poorly acted (Even though the cast is great), has a messy and uninteresting story, and the characters are cliches. The Academy should have just gave the Oscar to Goodfellas or Raging Bull, instead of holding off.
4. The French Connection (1971)
Do you have a film that you just hate, but everyone else loves to death? And I'm not talking about Crash, Forrest Gump, Chicago, etc, where it's easy to find someone who agrees with you, I'm talking about 100% on the Rotten Tomato meter. For me, it's French Connection. I hated the characters, the plot was boring, the action scenes were boring since I didn't care what happened to either the characters OR the plot, the movie was just a mess. No disrespect too Gene Hackman or anything, I just could barely sit through this film.
3. The Hurt Locker (2009)
All this movie is, is waiting for things to happen. And while that could kinda work, it doesn't work in The Hurt Locker. Every review I've seen of this film mentions the word "Suspenseful", but it's not suspenseful if you don't care about the characters. Half the time, I was just hoping they would die or something. And also, the cinematography is AWFUL. At least movies like The Hunger Games and Blair Witch Project had EXCUSES for the shaky cam, to build suspense for the characters you know and love, and to also show urgency and quickness, as if something serious is happening. In here, they shake the camera when ONE PERSON IS WALKING DOWN A DIRT ROAD!!! I hate the film, but if I had to find something good about it, it would be the scene where the guy has a bomb to the chest, I was nervous at that point, *SPOILERS* but when he died, I just hated the other characters more. *END OF SPOILERS*
2. Gladiator (2000)
The only things I like about this film: Russell Crowe did alright, and the special effects were good. That's it. The action was choppy and non-exciting, the characters were horrible, the dialogue was terrible, and worst of all, this movie had great potential, with a big budget and Ridley Scott as director. However, the film didn't turn out good, at least from my perspective.
1. Cavalcade (1933)
This movie is so horrible, so boring, so worthless, and so offensive in it's existence that it's one of my ten least favorite films of all time. Why is it so bad? Well, think about it. Grand Hotel, could it be re-released today? Of course, the story's great, the characters are wonderful, and the movie is timeless. Could Casablanca? Definitely. All Quiet on the Western Front? Sure! Wings? Why not?!?! These films came out before and after this film, and the stories and characters can still hold up today. However, this film is the worst acted film next to Reefer Madness and Manos, boring and horrible direction, and a story so ambitious it could only be pulled off by a person with extreme talent, which this director doesn't have. If you want to see how life was like from 1899 to 1933, just watch a documentary.
What are your least favorites? Post them in the comments below!
First of all its good to have you back :D
ReplyDeleteThe Departed well yes, Scorsese deserved an Oscar or should i say Oscars way back! The year was pretty weird, i could hardly see Children of Men or other nominated movies win so they had to go with it and since they realized that Scorsese was long overdue. However i don't think the movie is bad.
Yes Saving Private Ryan should have won that year.
I loved The Hurt Locker but for a year like that, it was a safe choice. I would have given Oscar to Up in the Air.
The English Patient well i like it but not that much. my list of 1996 has
1. Secrets & Lies
2. Breaking the Waves
3. Shine
4. Fargo
5. Sling Blade
6. Jerry Maguire
and 7. The English Patient. A safe choice once again.
Thank you, I hope to make WAY more of these lists in the near future.
ReplyDeleteThe Departed, I can understand people liking (Unlike Cavalcade, if anyone says that movie is good, I'll have to examine their brain), but it's not for me. If you want a film that takes this many risks, go all out, make it gritty and realistic, not quickly edited and cliched (Jack Nicholson, why is he always the cliche villain? He's a good actor, but...).
1996 has some good films, and English Patient was similar to several other Oscar nominated films from the 60's, so they decided to give the award to it. I can see why they didn't choose Fargo though, they already had Silence of the Lambs a few years back, they don't need another murder story. :P