Last Oscar Winning Best Picture that Actually Deserved It...- Page 3

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 12:10pm

American Beauty!

Also, last year since the big race was between Million Dollar Baby and Aviator, I'm so glad Million Dollar Baby won!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 12:11pm

Million Dollar Baby

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 12:17pm

I don't see how Million Dollar Baby was sucha great film. I guess I saw it all coming from second one. Many a film has been made that told the same story better.

In 2004, there were SO many more deserving films:

Hotel Rwanda
Finding Neverland
Maria Full of Grace
Eternal Sunshine
The Sea Inside (the BEST film on the subject I have ever seen)
Before Sunset
Vera Drake

[DBillyP]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 12:17pm

Out of the five nominees, I will go with MILLION DOLLAR BABY, but do NOT get me started on the Best Actor category from last year!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 12:50pm

Yeah, very few Best Picture winners have underwhelmed me as much as MILLION DOLLAR BABY, which wouldn't have made my top ten from last year (it was SO derivative -- I'd seen it all done better before). It's a shame it won in a year when a masterpiece like ETERNAL SUNSHINE was released.

Updated On: 12/12/05 at 12:50 PM

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 1:09pm

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING.

Before that, AMERICAN BEAUTY.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 1:22pm

Chicago.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 1:26pm

Schindler's List

[Dre2387]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 1:52pm

i was going through the first two pages, thinking, "geez, latest one that deserved was Million Dollar Baby, how could no one have said that yet?" Thank god people did. THat movie totally deserved to win. The relationship that Swank's character and Eastwood's character was very well created and the ending was so good.

And, I'm sorry, English Patient did not deserve the award. There was nothing special about it. I mean, the acting was incredible yes (not by Fiennes in the desert though, before he got burnt. He acted like a walking corpse). But Binoche was fantastic. I did like her in that role. And to see Dafoe in a role like that, it was interesting, in a good way. But I'm glad I have seen it now though, since it seems like a classic. Now I have an opinion about how bad it was.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:20pm

Annie Hall

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:24pm

1977 was a pretty amazing year. I'd have to see Annie Hall again (last time I saw it, I was 13) to know for sure, but I'll bet I still prefer Equus and Close Encounters (and, I admit to a certain fascination with Star Wars).

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:26pm

touchme, you've got to be kidding about TRAINSPOTTING...

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:28pm

Don't get me started!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:31pm

It's TERRIBLE...

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:31pm

For its day, Trainspotting was revolutionary. Name a film pre-trainspotting that looked at the drug culture with heart -- but showed the ugly as well. You'll be hard-pressed to find one.

Also, the camera work has changed the way people shoot films. i'd say that makes the film memorable enough to put up there, yeah.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:35pm

Heart? Ugly? It's a shallow film, all flash and no substance that glamorised seediness. I don't think there's heart or ugliness there. And it is possibly the worst ever adaptation of a book to the screen.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:36pm

DRUGSTORE COWBOY
"You won't **** me and I always have to drive."

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 3:58pm

You have GOT to be kidding. Million Dollar Baby TOTALLY deserved the Oscar last year. While the competition was fierce (Sideways and Ray were also great), nothing compared to the tender, heartbreaking, gorgeousness of this film. I've seen hundreds of movies and love some but hate a lot more and I found Million Dollar Baby to be one of the best films I've ever seen. Every single aspect of it was ideal. Hilary Swank was incredible, Morgan Freeman was astounding, Clint Eastwood's acting, direction, AND score were all first rate. I loved it so, so, so much.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 4:05pm

Hotel Rwanda deserved a Best Picture nod over The Aviator if you ask me. It was one of the best films of last year. I've rarely seen a more emotionally involving movie. And Cheadle was a revelation.

[xoxRogue]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 4:18pm

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 4:25pm

I agree that LOTR was a great epic trilogy. But, for it to win best picture is just to give it a misnomer.

Better films that year were:

In America
House of Sand and Fog
City of God
Girl with a Pearl Earring
Big Fish
Finding Nemo
The Barbarian Invasions
21 Grams

I'm lot a Lord of the Rings freak by any means... but a lot of these movies really underwhelmed me. In America was sweet but not Best Picture material. I very much enjoyed Girl with a Pearl Earring, but again, not Best Picture. Big Fish was watchable but ultimately forgettable. 21 Grams was, to me, the most overrated movie to come out that year... the acting was great but the now-gimmicky non-linear storyline could have worked just as well told in a straightforward fashion.

On the other hand, I loved City of God and Finding Nemo, and really thought that they were two of the best-made films that year. I agree that it's sort of unfair that Lord of the Rings was bound to win that year because it was the third installment of a landmark trillogy. Rather than awarding the other two even if they were the best in their respective years, there seemed to be some sort of unspoken agreement that Return of the King would win. I think that it was one of, if not the best movie that year, but that seemed an odd way to do things.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 4:43pm

The thing about THE LORD OF THE RINGS movies (and RETURN OF THE KING in particular) is that they are unprecedented achievements in film: not just on a technical level, but for sheer storytelling magnitude. There's a reason why Tolkien's trilogy has been untouched by filmmakers - Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola - for so many years (with the exception of those god-awful cartoon versions): for decades, it was known as "the unfilmable book," Hollywood's unattainable Holy Grail. That someone came along and was able to pull off a film version, and have it be magical and faithful to the revered text, is a phenomenon.

I think it was the New York Times that said that the final installment was a three-hour case that justifies the existence of cinema. Hyperbole, yes, but certainly the RINGS trilogy has changed how we perceive cinema. The films listed are good films, but I don't think any of them will be viewed on the same level of cinematic achievement as the mammoth LORD OF THE RINGS.

(And I think FINDING NEMO is overrated; THE INCREDIBLES is a much better Pixar film. Plus THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS pales in comparison to its predecessor, THE DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE).

Updated On: 12/12/05 at 04:43 PM

[PJ]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 4:53pm

I think the Academy got it right with American Beauty, Chicago, Million Dollar Baby. Those are only from the last six years or so.

[LaurenB]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 8:19pm

I guess I preferred The Hours over Chicago. Maybe it was the script. I thought Stephen Dillane should have been nom'd for a Best Supporting Actor. But there were so many good performances in that one. I liked Jeff Daniels too. And that little boy just broke my heart.

The movie that I absolutely loved was Shakespeare in Love.
Updated On: 12/12/05 at 08:19 PM

[fflagg]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 8:57pm

All About Eve (1950) :)