Same, I thought There Will Be Blood was way better No Country for Old Men would definitely be on my top 5 worst winners list
The Indian posters on here won't like this. Especially that one poster who couldn't stop talking about the movie, for about 2 months I think. I forgot who it was.. I'm actually waiting for him to respond to this thread. lol
There will be blood is like literature on a movie screen. It was stunning. I am surprised that many people didn't care for that film at all, given its pedigree, namely DDL.
Worst (have to be mediocre movies, and have a clear cut snub) 1.The greatest show on earth (high noon) 2.Shakespeare in Love (saving private ryan) 3.Oliver (2001 a space odessey) 4.How Green was my valley (citizen kane) 5.Ordinary People (empire strikes back Best 1.The Godfather 2.Rebecca 3.Gone with the Wind 4.Unforgiven 5.One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest
Depends on what your criteria is for a great movie. Plot? Characters/acting? Setting? Theme/Meaning? Filmmaking style? I guess, for me, since it's cinema, the plot doesn't have to be spectacular. The acting should be decent- very good and it can take it from OK to great. Setting- some movies do have a very specific tone/feel to them, like The French Connection. Setting is critical in that story. Theme/Meaning? For something like Schindler's List, certainly. Filmmaking style? I guess this is a big one for me, which is why I love No Country for Old Men. It does have very good acting in the always-good Tommy Lee Jones, Brolin (he was OK, here's where the lead actor's acting doesn't have to be great in order for the movie to be great, a.k.a. JFK), and of course Bardem- his performance alone is worth at least a watch. The plot- decent. Setting- yes, very definite. Meaning- definitely there. But it's the style- it's like what the Coen Brothers did with Fargo- they created such a work of art with the filming alone- the vast stretches of white, the close-ups, the shots-from-a-distance, etc. The visual element of movies, to me, is a HUGE factor- seems obvious, but many people are simply watching a film for a good story or laugh. I think No Country is one of the best-filmed movies I've seen- it just brings you so tightly into this world of those 3 main characters and doesn't let up. I did like There Will Be Blood a lot, but favored No Country. So, for me, that's the deal. That's why No Country is one of the top 5 favorite "Best Picture" winners. It also leaves a lot to the imagination- I've always felt that the best filmmakers leave a certain number of gaps in their movies for the reader's imagination- Kubrick is the master at this- and it's the untold elements of No Country that make you want to watch it again and again.
Worst: Crash A Beautiful Mind Shakespeare in Love Slumdog Millionaire Chicago Best: The Last Emperor Gandhi The Silence of the Lambs The Sound of Music Schindler's List
Worst: No particular order. 1. Chicago - (The Pianist should have won.) 2. Shakespeare in Love - (Saving Private Ryan) 3. Titanic - (As Good as it Gets, LA Confidential, and Good Will Hunting were better) 4. Dances with Wolves - (Goodfellas) 5. Slumdog Millionaire Best: 1. Unforgiven 2. The Silence of the Lambs 3. No Country for Old Men 4. Gladiator 5. Platoon
Yeah, that's what I've heard. We'll have to see where it goes, but, being that I have such strong feelings about the topic, I don't think Im going to like the film personally. Steven, as great as he is, needs to focus on imagination and fiction and stop dealing with history so much.
How in the hell can you not get into Braveheart? How old were you when you watched it? Like finalsbound, you may have been too young to understand it. The fact that nobody has mentioned Chariots of Fire as one of the worst shows you're all really just popping things off the top of your head than trying to do a serious list.
Was this really that good? I started watching it (online) like 4 years ago, but didn't get through much. Should I try again? I like dramas, especially emotionally ripping and historical dramas, but the beginning was in black and white and slow so I just could grab hold. My question seems dumb, was it really that good? Obviously, or it wouldn't have won a picture, but like someone said with Braveheart, some movies don't click with some people. Are there any other really sad movies that have won best picture? I like sad.
I don't know about "most of us". Box office numbers say otherwise. "Reservoir Dogs" grossed a measly $2,832,029 domestically. It definitely put him on the map, but it didn't exactly make him a household name. And it DEFINITELY didn't inspire phrases like "Tarantino-esque" like "Pulp Fiction" did. "Pulp Fiction", meanwhile, grossed $107,928,762 domestically and made almost every critic's "Best Of 1994" list. You may prefer "Dogs" (I disagree that it's a clearly better movie - I consider them roughly equal), but you can't deny that "Pulp" is what really brought him his notoriety.
Million Dollar Baby was probably the saddest of the best picture winners that I can think of off the top of my head.
I think all this proves is that kids your age have zero respect for what your grandparents and great-grandparents fought for. The idea of having to fight for your country's freedom? From men that pillaged and raped it for years? And yet you whine like a girl when I make an insensitive comment about Kiwis? (and, for the record, it was a 6.7 at the time and those are RARELY associated with deaths, but of course when we found that out the pile-on began yet again.) The youth today is beginning to disgust me.
Best: Schindler's List Slumdog Millionaire Return of the King Titanic Forrest Gump Worst: Beautiful Mind Crash Chicago
If you don't get the parallels, then you don't get history. But let's see. What is your favorite war movie?
