|
|
Post by Bartwald on May 15, 2005 10:33:45 GMT -5
So, it's like that: all the movies in the poll got their Oscars in the Best Picture category; also, all of them have some sins staining their conscience (Ordinary People stole the Oscar from Raging Bull, Forrest Gump - from Pulp Fiction, Rocky from Taxi Driver, and so on). The question is then: which of the eight films above do you hate most? And why? Or: is there any OTHER Best Picture that annoys you with no end? Tell us all! Please note: the eight films were chosen for the poll based on a list compiled by Empire. Praise THEM then for the idea, but also - kick THEIR asses for not liking Rocky enough.  |
|
|
|
Post by spacer on May 16, 2005 1:36:14 GMT -5
Well, I watched Braveheart - great, Beautiful Mind - enjoyable, Forrest Gump - terrific, Rocky - entertaining. Probably I saw Ordinary People but I don't remember it to judge it.
All of them were at least OK then.
After a brief brooding I choose... Rocky.
Why? I don't like Sylvester too much. I prefer Arnie ;D
The vote goes to Rocky then.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on May 16, 2005 2:10:46 GMT -5
My vote went for A Beautiful Mind. Rocky, Braveheart, and Forrest Gump really have no place on the list and I am offended to see them on there. Seriously. I can see where the animosity can come from Taxi Driver, Usual Suspects, Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption fans, but those films were still great in their own right.
I haven't seen any of the others (although I hear GSOE was pretty bad), but my vote went to A Beautiful Mind, simply because I LIKED the movie when I saw it, but lo and behold, I don't remember any of it today. It's going to be the Oscar-winning movie no one remembers in five years. It came out in the year of The Fellowship of the Ring, The Man Who Wasn't There, Moulin Rouge, Black Hawk Down, Mulholland Dr., Amelie, Ghost World, and Memento. All these films were much more memorable, significant and enjoyable than A Beautiful Mind. I think the Academy felt bad for denying Howard the Oscar for Apollo 13 and gave it to him out of pity. I'm sorry, it had Oscar-worthy performances, but the movie itself (and Howard's direction) were not Oscar-worthy.
I'm still looking forward to Cinderella Man though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on May 17, 2005 17:51:26 GMT -5
The only one in this poll I've never seen is AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS.
I went with ORDINARY PEOPLE (1980). It was an okay movie, but over RAGING BULL? Come on!
I've only seen GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH once, years ago, but it didn't strike me as Oscar worthy.
I like TAXI DRIVER, very good movie, but so is ROCKY, and I feel deserving of its Oscar win. I think the thing that most taints ROCKY are all the sequels, which makes people forget just how great that original movie was.
PULP FICTION deserved it over FORREST GUMP, but I'm not gonna hate on GUMP. It was a good, entertaining movie too and the fact that it won over FICTION doesn't make me want to hate it. Just like I can't hate DANCES WITH WOLVES for winning over GOODFELLAS that year. I love both of them and they're both brilliant for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 4, 2005 23:51:03 GMT -5
Hey, don't we have lots of other members who haven't voted in this poll? |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Dec 5, 2005 0:10:27 GMT -5
I haven't seen enough of those to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 5, 2005 15:25:44 GMT -5
Well, you guys caught me: I've never seen any of them. Even worse, I have no plan to. Hate me more, but I've hardly seen any cinematic classics outside the horror genre. They've never struck me as something I wanted to invest time in. Keep me in there, me and Q can bitch about the fact that we're the last two people that haven't seen The Godfather (and from an Italian?)
Gump is close: I've seen up till he got out of Vietnam and was put up in Watergate by Ricahrd Nixon. That's when I turned ut off because it just seemed too ridiculous that he could do everything in the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pulpmariachi on Dec 5, 2005 15:38:05 GMT -5
That's kind of the point of the entire movie, isn't it?
Um, I voted against A Beautiful Mind. I really did not like that picture (outside of Jennifer Connelly). It was just so...I can't describe it right now. I once wrote a review of it, let's see if I can find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 5, 2005 15:39:50 GMT -5
Yeah, but I couldn't stand that. It's too contrived for me to believe that one man had that kind of luck. No one in the world has that kind of luck, and I'm heading on over to The Movie Police to talk about those "other" hidden secrets of mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 5, 2005 15:41:38 GMT -5
Gump is close: I've seen up till he got out of Vietnam and was put up in Watergate by Ricahrd Nixon. That's when I turned ut off because it just seemed too ridiculous that he could do everything in the movie. So, you have no problem accepting zombies, werewolves, aliens, vampires, possessed cars & houses and every other kind of horror theme, but you can't suspend disbelief for a fantasy about a guy who meets famous people and lives an extraordinary life? Hmm, okay. |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 5, 2005 16:01:08 GMT -5
So, you have no problem accepting zombies, werewolves, aliens, vampires, possessed cars & houses and every other kind of horror theme, but you can't suspend disbelief for a fantasy about a guy who meets famous people and lives an extraordinary life? Hmm, okay. That's an easy one, Heiney: zombies, aliens, etc. are all ficticious parts of the human mind, while this movie dealt with figures from history. It's all too convienent that he just happened to appear everywhere. That didn't seem like it could happen in the way the film presented them. |
|
|
|
Post by Pulpmariachi on Dec 5, 2005 17:20:37 GMT -5
Gump is a ficticious part of the human mind, being a ficticious character, right?
Oh, you want far-fetched, read the book, where he goes to the moon.
That's right.
Gump on the moooooon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 6, 2005 10:13:01 GMT -5
That's an easy one, Heiney: zombies, aliens, etc. are all ficticious parts of the human mind, while this movie dealt with figures from history. It's all too convienent that he just happened to appear everywhere. That didn't seem like it could happen in the way the film presented them. I think your reason is flawed. Of course it couldn't happen. Yes, GUMP features real historical people, and yes, they're all interacting with a fictional character. But they all appear in situations that either did happen, ie: John Lennon on the Dick Cavett Show, the Watergate scandal, etc. or could've happened, ie: Elvis renting a room from Gump's mom. None of the real people appear in situations that are preposterous. The joke is that Gump was at these events too. It's kind of like the scene in INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE, where Indy, disguised as a Nazi, literally runs into Adolph Hitler. Hitler takes Indy's father's diary from him then autographs it and hands it back to Indy. Never happened, Adolph was real, Indy is fictional, but it's funny, and in Indy's world, could've happened. Anyway, GUMP is supposed to mainly be a comedy. Why take it so seriously? I stand by the reasoning that you can't suspend disbelief for a movie that isn't horror, when the horror stuff is far more unbelievable. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy the horror stuff, it means that I can suspend disbelief equally for any movie, no matter what the genre. |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 6, 2005 10:53:37 GMT -5
Okay, why is it so hard for you guys to accept that I don't like "Forrest Gump?" It's nothing against the movie, I just don't like it. We've all seen those movies, this one is mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Dec 6, 2005 11:20:04 GMT -5
I liked Forrest Gump. But I like quirky, "wild suspension of disbelief" movies. Like Charlie Kaufman's works. My wife doesn't like Forrest Gump, though. Oh well.
"But Lt. Dan, you got no legs..."
|
|
