Least Favorite films that Won Oscars

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by RFK

The Sound of Music
Midnight Cowboy
The Sting
The Deer Hunter
Terms of Endearment

What the hell is wrong with you?

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Watershipdownisgood

So while I don’t watch or care for the Oscars anymore I have seen some of the films that have won Oscars that I didn’t like one being Out of Africa winning best picture over a number of other better titles I probably forgot. Anyways I actually despise this film it’s one of the most boring generic romantic dramas I’ve ever seen. It’s also a film I almost fell asleep watching it’s slow, boring and it’s probably one of if not my least favorite film of all time that won a number of Oscars.

And honestly I don’t know why something this boring and generic won it’s literally just a film for the actors to have a vacation in Africa and have a romantic relationship in the film. That is all this film is no wonder nobody remembers this boring turd of a film.

Anyways what are your least favorite Oscar winners that won Oscars that didn’t deserve the Oscars they got? As mine is Out of Africa but there’s some others I also didn’t like but Out of Africa is the main offender for Me.

I agree that Out of Africa was a boring film. It was well made but way too long.

Talking strictly Best Picture winners, my least favourite is Argo. It turns what is an intriguing piece of real-life espionage into a bog-standard Hollywood thriller with a monumentally stupid ending, particularly for a film based on a true story. Life of Pi should have won the top prize that year, IMO.

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I haven't watched the Oscars either, in many years. I used to enjoy them as a kid, but over time the show devolved into a bunch of self-important back-slapping for Hollywood's elite. Its far less about the movies anymore, and instead focuses on the celebs lecturing from the podium, to viewers how they think we should live...instead of being honest with us about how they actually do live.

I quit watching when all the speeches never political ideals. The show ise to be like most movies a way of escaping for a bit. Now it's all about someone's agenda. I really don't care who wins or loses now. Just want a good film to watch. The candidates all seem to be political votes.wothin the industry, doesn't seem to have much to do with the best film.pre to do with who knows who. Anyway thought Slumdog Millionaire was a bad one.

[DavePS3]

How Out Of Africa received it over Color Purple is beyond me. I heard it was political though.

[deatheats]

Forrest Gump.

[Jaymole]

It would be between Titanic, Forrest Gump & Braveheart. I guess if I had to pick one it would be Forrest Gump. Sadly I had to watch it twice.... once in the theaters when it came out and then a few years later at a get together (I did not want to be the one to say no to the film they chose).

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by deatheats

Forrest Gump.

My friend hates that film and so do a lot of people. I love it.

For me, Moonlight, Nomadland off the top of my head.
If Kramer vs Kramer won that one too.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by L.J.

I quit watching when all the speeches never political ideals. The show used to be like most movies a way of escaping for a bit. Now it's all about someone's agenda. I really don't care who wins or loses now. Just want a good film to watch. The candidates all seem to be political votes. Within the industry, doesn't seem to have much to do with the best film.

I remember maybe 2 or 3 years ago, Gary Oldman got up on stage and actually thanked America for his success as an actor. I had new respect for him after that, but I was also surprised the Academy let that segment air on TV.

[slumcat]

Oppenheimer
Killers Of The Flower Moon
Jojo Rabbit
Belfast

[dkelly26666]

Haven't agreed with a Best Picture winner since "The Departed" and "No Country for Old Men" won in 2006 and 2007. (I've only agreed with the Best Picture winner 11 times since 1971; 11 times in 52 years).

Most of the recent ones are pretty darned forgettable, if you ask me. Who will be going on about "Argo", "The Artist", "Spotight", "Moonlight", "CODA", "Nomadland" and others many years from now? Most of those already seem mostly forgotten.

Historically, I'm with several other people on "Forrest Gump". I never got the widespread appeal for that one. I even tried it twice in the theater because people were acting like I missed something the first time. Nope. Still just thought it was OK, at best.

Hanks winning for that plus "Philadelphia" (two years in a row) was pretty upsetting, too. On "Gump", I never bought him for a second, and on "Philadelphia", I didn't think he did anything special. What the film was about won him the Oscar, not the performance.

If I'm being honest, and pro-active, "Oppenheimer" will fall into this category for me, shortly, as well. Such a vastly overrated reaction to a very average film. "Film of the Century"? Give me a break.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Haven't agreed with a Best Picture winner since "The Departed" and "No Country for Old Men" won in 2006 and 2007. (I've only agreed with the Best Picture winner 11 times since 1971; 11 times in 52 years).

Most of the recent ones are pretty darned forgettable, if you ask me. Who will be going on about "Argo", "The Artist", "Spotight", "Moonlight", "CODA", "Nomadland" and others many years from now? Most of those already seem mostly forgotten.

Historically, I'm with several other people on "Forrest Gump". I never got the widespread appeal for that one. I even tried it twice in the theater because people were acting like I missed something the first time. Nope. Still just thought it was OK, at best.

Hanks winning for that plus "Philadelphia" (two years in a row) was pretty upsetting, too. On "Gump", I never bought him for a second, and on "Philadelphia", I didn't think he did anything special. What the film was about won him the Oscar, not the performance.

If I'm being honest, and pro-active, "Oppenheimer" will fall into this category for me, shortly, as well. Such a vastly overrated reaction to a very average film. "Film of the Century"? Give me a break.

With very rare exceptions (Titanic and Return of the King among them), the Academy doesn't honor popular films anymore. Its all about "social justice" or some other PC cause for them. I haven't been to a movie theater in about two years, and I don't buy most of the new films that come out, either. Hollywood has lost a ton of its current appeal, at least for me.

[Rzzzz]

Sticking with best picture winners...

Kramer vs Kramer (Apocalypse Now should have won)
Chariots Of Fire (boring as hell)
Out Of Africa (see post #1)
Shakespeare in Love (Saving Private Ryan should have won)
Crash (pretentious crap)
The Hurt Locker (completely forgettable)
Birdman (American Sniper should have won)
Shape Of Water

I haven't even seen the latest ones, so I can't comment on them.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

My friend hates that film and so do a lot of people. I love it.

For me, Moonlight, Nomadland off the top of my head.
If Kramer vs Kramer won that one too.

My wife hates Forest but I love it. Especially the Vietnam war segment and all the scenes with Gary Sinise. I agree with you on Kramer vs Kramer. Good acting but an average movie. I haven't seen Moonlight or Nomadland. One of these days maybe...

[Zivouhr]

Does the Academy of voters/actors have a set of Academy qualification rules to abide by? I wish they would reveal what films qualify at the start of every new Academy Awards show. Everything seems so mysterious with the Academy. Why aren't they more transparent and reveal themselves? Why all the secrecy with who they are and what their rules are?

I'll have to look up the Academy's website to see if they have a list of rules there, and who qualifies to be a judge/voter and so on.

ACTORS

From Academy Bylaws:

Article III, Section 1. Membership shall be by invitation of the Board of Governors. Invitations to active membership shall be limited to those persons active in the motion picture arts and sciences, or credited with screen achievements, or who have otherwise achieved distinction in the motion picture arts and sciences and who, in the opinion of the Board, are qualified for membership.

To be considered for invitation to membership in the Actors Branch of the Academy, a candidate must:

(a) have a minimum of three theatrical feature film credits, in all of which
the roles played were scripted roles, one of which was released in the past
five years, and all of which are of a caliber that reflect the high standards
of the Academy,

and/or

(b) have been nominated for an Academy Award in one of the acting categories,

or

(c) have, in the judgment of the Actors Branch Executive Committee,
otherwise achieved unique distinction, earned special merit or made an outstanding contribution as a motion picture actor.



From Academy Bylaws:

Article III, Section 1. Membership shall be by invitation of the Board of Governors. Invitations to active membership shall be limited to those persons active in the motion picture arts and sciences, or credited with screen achievements, or who have otherwise achieved distinction in the motion picture arts and sciences and who, in the opinion of the Board, are qualified for membership.

To be considered for invitation to membership in the Directors Branch of the Academy, a candidate must:

(a) have a minimum of two directorial credits, at least one of which is from the most recent ten years, on theatrical feature films of a caliber which, in the opinion of the executive committee, reflect the high standards of the Academy,

and/or

(b) have directorial screen credit on a picture nominated for the Academy Directing Award, for the Academy Best Picture and/or for the Academy International Feature Film Award.

or

(c) have, in the judgment of the Directors Branch Executive Committee, otherwise achieved unique distinction, earned special merit or made an outstanding contribution as a motion picture director.


https://www.oscars.org/about/branch-...ents/directors

It mentions selected by the Board of Governors. Who are they, and what are these high standards they refer to? A mystery after all these years. I wonder if there is a documentary about the Academy Awards?

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I remember maybe 2 or 3 years ago, Gary Oldman got up on stage and actually thanked America for his success as an actor. I had new respect for him after that, but I was also surprised the Academy let that segment air on TV.

[terp_fan99]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

With very rare exceptions (Titanic and Return of the King among them), the Academy doesn't honor popular films anymore. Its all about "social justice" or some other PC cause for them. I haven't been to a movie theater in about two years, and I don't buy most of the new films that come out, either. Hollywood has lost a ton of its current appeal, at least for me.

Other than The Departed which was okay, I haven't liked any best picture winners since Return of the King. I don't even bother watching them anymore. Now they're mostly artsy films that have no appeal to mass audiences.

[RossyG]

The Artist is ****ing shit.

So there.

Gnaa!

[Lum]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

With very rare exceptions (Titanic and Return of the King among them), the Academy doesn't honor popular films anymore. Its all about "social justice" or some other PC cause for them. I haven't been to a movie theater in about two years, and I don't buy most of the new films that come out, either. Hollywood has lost a ton of its current appeal, at least for me.

Technical or artistic prowess should be the priority, but not in a vacuum. Visuals are no substitute for pacing or storytelling. I definitely hope the Academy has the same disdain for overly long, ensemble cast, CGI fests.