I love that movie!

WTH is it on the list?

I'm not the biggest Costner fan myself, overall. But I have watched Dances with Wolves several times and enjoy every aspect of it.

Personally, I'm a fan of the film and thought the Oscar (TM) was deserved.

Literally page by page.

Jerzy Kosinski wrote the book and the screenplay.

Read the book, saw the movie.

I rented the DVD when it was available. Great author but a tragic fellow.

The music and cinematography alone are truly epic.

I've never, ever forgotten her scathingly funny review of that movie, which I'll excerpt and link to. I did see the movie, and I did not like it at all, which is why it gives me great pleasure to do this. Apologies in advance!!

Did they really think we wouldn't notice the fact they were very different? Size, shape, ears, coloring. I mean, come on.

I fell asleep. Brokeback Mountain was a much better movie.

Wolf

You, too, must have remembered Kael's humorous review, which I've linked to above.

But then, I looooooved the English Patient too. sigh (my sister HATED it)

It’s one of the best of the best pictures!

Out of Africa

although it had beautiful cinematography and a great soundtrack by John Barry.

And I love all of them.

It has a following, though

It's the only movie I have never regretted paying to see and falling asleep in the theater.

To this day, I go into a hypnotic somnambulistic trance whenever I hear the words, "I had a..."

absolute dreck

Pulp Fiction, Shawshank, Quiz Show, Ed Wood, Madness of King George....

I am livid every time I remember the so-called friends who took me to see that atrocity.

Forrest Gump was sheer brilliance.

Pulp Fiction was the most enjoyable and memorable experience I ever had in a packed movie theater.

On one hand, it's had cultural impact: "Life is like a box of chocolates...", "Stupid is as stupid does...", and "Run Forrest, Run" are part of pop culture. Bubba Gump restaurants still serve shrimp. It had a helluva cast.

On the other hand, the film has not aged well. And it was telling that Hanks steadfastly refused to do a sequel, even though the writer, the director, and the studio wanted to.

There are many films (not just on this list and not just in the last fifty years) that have won best picture that people look back five years later and realize the wrong film won. In this case, I think most people would agree that Shawshank Redemption should have won best picture.

Really hated it.

Thank you!

...kind. That movie bored the crap out of me. (Gump, that is.)

But then I'm a film enjoyer rather than a film snob. I can only think of a couple movies I did not enjoy. Battlefield Earth tops that list, but even Plan 9 From Outer Space and Glen or Glenda were thoroughly enjoyable in their own twisted way.

in how the voting is done. It's similar to the way people can't understand why the big blockbusters don't get nominated most of the time, such as comic book movies or science fiction fare. It's not about popularity (most of the time) but the actual craft and impact.

And more often than not, how much promotion went into winning over votes in the academy.

in the face for Saving Private Ryan. I remember I was actually shocked that Ryan didn't win. The opening 30 minutes alone was unlike anything I'd ever seen on film.

Amadeus and Dances with Wolves do not belong in poll.

Can't vote on that question if La La Land isn't included. It was completely unwatchable

…as you may not recall, if you turned the show off right after the award-winner was first "announced."

I stand corrected

Not on your list, but I HATED that movie.

Somewhere about halfway thru, my brain was screaming, "Just DIE ALREADY!" at Debra Winger's character.

Nothing redeeming about it.

As emotionally-satisfying as it would to vote for Titanic just on the principle of the thing, I can't say it was more-deserving of the "honor" than The English Patient, which totally butchered one of the finest English-language novels of the past fifty years (and, if you haven't read it, DO SO!). For that matter, I could also point to Ordinary People (another hatchet-job on a good book) or Oliver! (I know musicals were big in the '60s, but director Carol Reed took a all-singing! all-dancing! Technicolor '40s musical approach that was totally at odds not only with the source material but also with the stage musical on which it was based).

And no criticism of Shakespeare in Love, please -- it was one of the cleverest films ever, and it was rare to see a Hollywood film so designed to appeal to a literate audience (although my own pick for that year would have been the unnominated The Truman Show). By contrast, although Saving Private Ryan had some overwhelming action sequences, if you looked beyond them and the Spielberg mystique, you were left with a very clichéd WWII drama (complete with the platoon-as-microcosm-of-America) with some gaping plot holes.

Everyone has preferred genres of film. In America, within that subset of "everyone" is a large group of people that would rather sit through root canal than deal with anything related to Shakespeare - fictional or real, no matter how clever. It brings back bad flashbacks to high school English.

I agree the film was really clever and funny. For whatever reason (it may just be me, but I don't think so), it doesn't hold up in repeat viewings. It's kind of like Sleuth, Deathtrap, or The Crying Game in that respect.

Overall, I'd have given Best Picture to Saving Private Ryan, but I agree that it's an imperfect film.

but the scene where Shani Wallace sings As Long As He Needs Me is for the ages. Those weepy violins break me down every time. I keep saying stay away from that black heart Nancy he's going to kill you. Funny thing is that scene reminds me less of the original show and more of Judy Garland when she did it on her TV show.

(which is to take nothing away from Oliver Reed or Harry Secombe). And it's beautifully filmed.

The question to me is "Is it a better film than Funny Girl or The Lion in Winter?" I'd have to say no on both counts.

She is awfully likeable. For my money, her best song in "Oliver!" is "Oom Pah Pah".

Winning over Star Wars is a criminal travesty.

I watched that outrage as it happened. Genre films are always getting stiffed.

Lucas rips off a number of sources, and steals the plot from a Japanese samurai movie, "The Hidden Fortress".

Spotlight was about as exciting as your average episode of Law and Order: SVU. I didn't think Moonlight was all that great, either.

they both sucked but the other nominees were not so hot. Three Billboards tops them all.

Not "The Room", but "Room". Period.

My wife and I made a point to see all of the nominated movies that year, and of all of them, Room was the one that moved us the most. We talked about that movie constantly for weeks. I STILL think about it. That poor little kid. What would you do in that situation?

My personal judgment of any work of art hinges on whether I am still thinking about it or talking about it days, or even weeks, later. That's what great art is all about.

I was so glad Brie Larson won Best Actress. The little Jacob Tremblay has a great career ahead of him if he doesn't burn out. He has 2 sisters who act as well.

I didn't see it as original or particularly well done.

Shakespeare in Love would be a close second.

could be joyous and inventive. There was one scene where someone had a gun, contemplating suicide and then you see a title card reading "bang". The bang turns out to be an auto wreck. That type of misdirection is impossible with sound since everyone can distinguish the different in sounds. Most people I know that criticize the artist dislike silent and/or b&w films and didn't give it a chance. The Artist is a masterpiece and might be the best film out of all the ones on the OP's list.

"Titanic" & "Gladiator" are other examples.

I can live with the rest of the flicks indicated, although I agree that "Titanic" was marginal---"L.A. Confidential" was robbed, that year....

Gosh....awful....unwatchable....torture

Maybe that is why it won!

Doolittle didn't do enough to win best picture anyway.

The other nominees that year were Bonnie & Clyde, The Graduate, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

Dr. Doolittle never had a chance at winning.

Gad, that was a terrible movie.

If I could add more picks, I'd add it.

As Trump is the "Forrest Gump" of U.S. Presidents: an aberration, an embarassment, a holy-shit-how-the-fuck-did-this-happen thing.

i'll agree there were aspects of that movie that weren't horrible, particularly the further away from costner you got.

but costner ruined it for me. and i'm not a complete anti-costner, he's found some scripts that are suitable to his limited range, and those movies work (field of dreams, bull durham, e.g.)

but i could not buy for one moment that costner wasn't a present day person reading a script from a different era. he did not get into the role at all and it ruined any suspension of disbelief necessary to really draw me into the movie.

but best picture?

ridiculous.

Rocky was nothing but clichés.

And the sequels went downhill from there.

I saw “Titanic” multiple times in the theater with my ex-wife, don’t judge me she was a Titanic junky!! I love the accuracy and attention to historic detail, but the actual screenplay is shit! (FYI, there’s no fucking way Jack couldn’t have gotten on that fucking door!!!) “Good Will Hunting” and “L.A. Confidential” are not only better movies, both have held up better than “Titanic”

I actually walked out of the “English Patient”....only movie I’ve ever walked out of, and I love movies....And some are quite shitty movies! However, look at the other nominees that year! “Jerry fucking Mcquire” was nominated for “best picture”. I mean I guess, in retrospect, “Fargo” is a better film, but that was a weak ass year for movies!

While my heart wanted to scream out “Forrest Gump” , there’s no fucking way...NONE, ZERO, ZILCH...that you can convince me that “FG” is better than “Pulp Fiction” or “Shawshank”...hell “Quiz Show” was better!

But no, sadly “Crash” takes the cake. That flick is a one watch, never watch again shitshow that tries to seem emotional by beating you over the head with its emotion....”Brokeback Mountain” was and still is the “Best Picture” of that year. Even looking over the other nominees that year, take “BM” out of the consideration, “Munich”, “Capote”, “Good Night, and Good Luck”, all are better films and have held up significantly better than “Crash”

Was when "Ordinary People" won Best Picture, and "The Great Santini" wasn't even nominated.

[The Great Santini, written by Pat Conroy, is one of the best novels I've ever read]

It won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2008.

(I liked Titanic)

A good suspense film.

Awful music, insipid dancing, and bad acting.
Add a ridiculous script.

ha

They made it for about a hundred grand. A pittance even in '74. IIRC, Blair Witch Project finally captured the title.

And Amadeus? Really?
There's one that I thought should never have won best picture and that was Forrest Gump ...even though I love Tom Hanks .....it should have been the Shawshank Redemption.

But every article, broadcast, thread or poll that deals with worst movies of any type should focus on Pulp Fiction and Pulp Fiction alone

...since 1967.

Pulp Fiction was nominated, but did not win.

...a decent action movie, but Best Picture caliber?

Memento, Cast Away, O Brother Where Art Thou?, and Requiem For A Dream were not nominated, but were all better films that year.

Obviously, I wiffed big not putting Forrest Gump on.

and of those I did see, only "Titanic" fits on a possible list of worsts. I saw it 10 years after the fact, and was unimpressed.

"Oliver?" I saw it in 1968 and loved it. For years, I could sing all those songs, word for word, I saw it so many times after the first. Of course, in 1968, I was only 8 years old, so I probably had a different set of criteria for good movies. My favorite childhood movie of all times is Mary Poppins, which is also a "Best Picture."

I still love "Ordinary People" and watch it again every few years.

It's a well made film. I think The Lion In Winter was better, however.

It almost seems trendy to dislike it. I saw it a long time ago and don't remember a lot about it, but I didn't think it was that awful. I can think of a lot of films that were much worse. It wasn't the best film, but I don't think it deserves the hate it's getting here.

Just curious, why do people hate it so much?

It went up against these films for Best Picture

As Good as It Gets
The Full Monty
Good Will Hunting
L.A. Confidential

Most critics, I think, would say LA Confidential was the best film.

What's good about Titanic: it's meticulously researched and filmed; it's a true story that simultaneously serves as cautionary tale of hubris and man vs. nature; the story has larger than life real characters, such as Molly Brown and John Jacob Astor; it's a story about heroism and cowardice; it's a story about every reason we'd all love to be rich while simultaneously showing egregious classism; the effects were amazing; DiCaprio and Winslet have great on-screen chemistry; the "King of the World" scene is one of the most iconic moments in American film; and Gloria Stuart.

What's bad about Titanic: It's melodramatic; it has some really bad writing; the characters are two-dimensional; it's really long; the whole subplot with the star of the ocean and the treasure hunt is annoying; it really sucks to think that Gloria Stuart survived, met a husband, had kids, and raised a family and in the end her version of the afterlife is going back to Titanic to be with DiCaprio; Celine Dion -- if you were around during that era, you heard "My Heart Will Go On" again and again and again (and again) for like five years; it's ultra mainstream and ultra commercial.

Cameron invokes that kind of mixed reaction. Avatar made truckloads of money, so somebody must have liked it. Visually, it's amazing. Disney is ready to make many sequels. Yet, most critics say the same thing -- it's Disney's Pocohontas with blue aliens.

... if you had called it "least favorite" instead of "worst" there would be less rancor in these comments.

Some people love Titanic, other people hate it. But it sure made a lot of money and that's normally one of the deciding factors in Hollywood, rightly or wrongly. Most of us have strong opinions about whether we like the movie or not, but deciding if it's the best or worst, we leave that up to the professional reviewers and movie makers.

It's the Lounge, and we're debating film awards. I don't think anyone is too seriously hacked off about any of this. I certainly hope not.

I'm going to respond to Titanic in another comment.

now I know why. Did not deserve the accolades it has received.

It should have.

I think you to have experienced "living a life of quiet desperation".