Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:41 am
by Archie Leach
Ugh. Rain Man. Driving Miss Daisy. Dances With Wolves. Forrest Gump. Braveheart. All miserable choices. I'd definitely pick any of the other five over that dreary lot, but I have to admit a love affair with The English Patient. Have always been a fan of the film - I also think because I was at such an impressionable age when I saw it (I was 14), it has stayed with me much longer than I would have expected.
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:11 pm
by Franz Ferdinand
Yeah, pretty lame decade. I'd vote for Titanic, Unforgiven and Schindler's List. The sentimental side of me just won't relinquish Titanic as a favorite, despite the flack it takes as being overblown and ridiculous. I just love it.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:33 pm
by Hustler
A poor decade
Unforgiven and The Silence are clearly superior
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 am
by mlrg
Schindler's List
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2003 2:11 am
by Nik
Isn't it possible that Unforgiven won merely because it was directed by Eastwood? Don't get me wrong, I love the film too and I'm glad it won Best Picture. But I'm cynical enough to believe that, on the rare ocassion that the Academy gets it right, it has little to do with merit than it has to do with backstory, politics and popularity. My guess would be the large acting branch of voters decided to endorse one of their own for Best Director. (We've seen this mentality render awful results as well - with Best Director wins for Mel Gibson and Ron Howard no less!)
I was elated when Hilary Swank won Best Actress - a truly great performance - but I knew it had little to do with voters realizing that she was better than Annette Benning. My guess is industry buzz and her age factor helped her. That she probably won on those terms is not a demerit by any means - just a sign of Academy fickelness. It doesn't alter the fact that she really did deserve to win. The same voters who rewarded the likes of Angelina Jolie, Michael Caine, Phil Collins and John Irving that year surely weren't sophisticated enough to appreciate the subtleties and beauty in Swank's portrayal. If they were, Chloe Sevigny's quietly affecting performance would have easily earned her the Oscar over Jolie's superficial excess.
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2003 5:51 pm
by Sabin
It sucks that Schindler's List is such an amazing film because I'd love to be able to vote for Unforgiven. I still find it difficult to believe that this crackling, visceral, deeply moving yarn won Best Picture above such obvious, hard-headed contenders as A Few Good Men and Scent of a Woman. I never would have guessed it would, seriously.
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:24 am
by Aceisgreat
Went with Schindler's List, of course. The Silence Of The Lambs and Unforgiven were also excellent winners.
Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2003 12:36 am
by criddic3
Schindler's List is just such a monumental acheivment. I saw it when it was out. I was 15 at the time. It was an amazing experience. Having seen it a couple of times since then, I can honestly say that it loses none of its potent power.
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2003 8:31 pm
by Eric
I too voted for Unforgiven. (Random thought: "Could it be that Unforgiven is the only Cahiers-approved film to ever win Best Picture?")
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 12:01 am
by dws1982
Considering some of the choices in their history, this isn't such a bad decade. I only hated Dances With Wolves and Forrest Gump. (I'm neutral about Braveheart, have some affection for Rain Man and Titanic and like the other five a good bit.)
I voted for Unforgiven. The very rare case where my favorite film of the year actually won the Oscar for Best Picture.
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:55 pm
by OscarGuy
Which of these do you consider the best of the winners selected during this decade?