I watched "Zodiac" for the first time since I saw in theaters last year and i still believe it should have gotten nominated for Best Picture. As much as i appreciate Michael Clayton i believe it could have taken its place easily.

what great movie do you think got robbed of a nomination in the past years?

Thread is over.

NOW retire this thread

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Academy_Awards_USA/1993

i dont know how anyone serisouly voted for Pacino that year

but yeah, that is one of the worst robbery's of a best pic nomination. pretty much everyone and their mama knows that it should have gotten nominated but the controversy had the academy shook

she has my respect for that. i need to see video of that

she was banned from the awards for almost a decade because of that...IRONICALLY she would become an award winner, after the fact


i read in an interview that spike lee didn't even KNOW her at the time, never met bassinger or anything....

That's a tough one.

just for the multiple long takes during the film where everything had to be orchestrated perfectly. the every actors performance was great and that shit had your heart beating hard as hell cause it was so intense.

a lot of movies have show a world in a future that isn't well but this one looked like a world that can actually occur in our future which was impressive and scary as well

cause to me, it was the length. plus, it was a documentary so it had that against it as well. What film could it have been swapped with?

* Forrest Gump (1994) - Wendy Finerman; Steve Starkey; Steve Tisch

Other Nominees:
# Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) - Duncan Kenworthy
# Pulp Fiction (1994) - Lawrence Bender
# Quiz Show (1994) - Michael Jacobs (II); Julian Krainin; Michael Nozik (I); Robert Redford (I)
# Shawshank Redemption, The (1994) - Niki Marvin

both of those are expendable to me.

i mean, obviously, a documentary's never going to get nominated for Best Picture (*maybe* one of Michael Moore's). the Oscars are all about celebrating Hollywood glitz and glam. but "Hoop Dreams" was, far and away, the best movie of the year. it's one of the most impressive, audacious American movies ever made.

that it wasn't even nominated for best Documentary is one of the biggest Oscar travesties ever.

And I have no problem with that movie or those type of movies being nominated at all.

So I will go with "Quiz Show."

Had Robert Redford not directed it, it wouldn't have got half the shine it did.

Cause even as somebody who generally likes somewhat boring, go nowhere movies,
that movie is boring and goes nowhere.

>Cause even as somebody who generally likes somewhat boring, go
>nowhere movies,
>that movie is boring and goes nowhere.

man i can watch quiz show anytime. i dont know what it is but i really like it.

being that it was 1994 and WAYYYY too many ultimate classic films came out that year.....

i mean, HELL, lion king should of been nominated for best picture too


there's never going to be a year in films like 1994

i still think its one of the best animated pictures ever

Four Weddings aside.

2006 nominees

crash
brokeback mountain
good night, good luck
capote
munich

it's better than all of those films.

25th Hour should have been nominated in 2003. I think Chicago won that year. And Half Nelson should have been nominated last year.

I felt that Constant Gardner was overrated. It was a god movie but people lauded it way too much. i didn't see what was so great.

And it was better than Capote and Good Night and Good Luck and Crash. (and I still haven't seen Brokeback).

Hurricane

Denzel was brilliant, the movie was ehh

http://www.myspace.com/bski
http://www.myspace.com/livesociety

I believe it was the same year Gladiator won best pic.

Sideways is real good but Hotel Rwanda was so impacting on so many levels. I mean, that movie was powerful.

Sideways, IMO, was far and away the best of the movies nominated that year for Best Pic. Take out Ray or Finding Neverland. I liked Hotel Rwanda enough, but there's NO possible way you could take out Sideways.

that's arguably the best written comedy in at least a decade.
---------------------------------------
http://i37.tinypic.com/5x8u9k.gif

The OKP® King of the Late Pass™
---------------------------------------

i still dont get peoples facination with sideways. it bored the shit outta me. should i watch it again

it kept my interest throughout. Maybe you just didn't get caught up in the story like i did but i was at attention the entire film.

Fam, I'm a Fincher hater and I dug on Zodiac.

Zodiac was 2 1/2 hours of boredom. And it felt much longer than that, even. Nothing happened. We just get to watch the obsessed characters try to solve the murders - there's no action, no payoff, and no resolution.


I particularly like this section from the allmovie.com review (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:325574~T1):

"During the middle section of the film, when Toschi and Armstrong follow their most promising lead, Fincher tempers the terror with excitement and frustration as the two devoted detectives desperately try every possible avenue to link the suspect to the crimes. On a first viewing, this portion of the movie may feel slack, as if Fincher has lost his command over the narrative. Not until Zodiac is over does the viewer realize how effectively Fincher has manipulated audience expectations, and made them feel as infuriated and exasperated as the protagonists. This is where terror gives way to frustration and dissatisfaction, emotions most directors never consider eliciting from an audience in a conventional serial-killer movie."

I think it's hilarious that this review tries to make it a good thing that the viewer gets infuriated, exasperated, frustrated, and dissatisfied. (And BORED)

How can this be a good thing?!

And no, I'm not giving this movie more than a first viewing.

Here are more reviews (swiped from Wiki) with which I agree:

The film gets mired in the inevitable red tape of police investigations," wrote Bob Longino of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who also felt that the film "stumbles to a rather unfulfilling conclusion" and "seems to last as long as the Oscars".

David Thompson in the Guardian felt that in relation to the rest of Fincher's career, Zodiac was "the worst yet, a terrible disappointment in which an ingenious and deserving all-American serial killer nearly gets lost in the meandering treatment of cops and journalists obsessed with the case".



On the other hand, Death Proof had cool and interesting characters, good dialogue, and some great action scenes. I know you hated it so you'll disagree with all of the above, but it was infinitely more enjoyable than the mess that was Zodiac.

I don't know why I couldn't get into it but that film, while admirable, just didn't click with me.

the idea of celebrity and myth-/legend-making at the very least.

I pretty much loved everything about it.

Aussie filmmaker, never really worked with many Hollywood people. When the studio barely even backed the release, I think his Oscar hopes were done. It's all about visibility and politics.

this film was amazing. Brad Pitt, Casey Affleck and Sam Rockwell all gave Oscar worthy performances in it. The cinematography was beautiful and the tension and emotions they make yuo feel with this movie are crazy.

yeah, this was the most overlooked movie of 2007 to me

why they gave singleton a nomination for best director and snub this film is beyond me...

Best Picture
Winner:

* Silence of the Lambs, The (1991) - Edward Saxon; Kenneth Utt (I); Ronald M. Bozman

Other Nominees:
# Beauty and the Beast (1991) - Don Hahn (I)
# Bugsy (1991) - Mark Johnson (I); Barry Levinson (I); Warren Beatty
# JFK (1991) - A. Kitman Ho; Oliver Stone (I)
# Prince of Tides, The (1991) - Barbra Streisand; Andrew S. Karsch

i loath Barbra Streisand so it can ake Prince of Tides place and i never saw Bugsy but Silence of the Lambs and Beauty & The Beast are much better than Boyz in the Hood imo and its one of my favorite movies ever.

from looking back, those were the two most forgettable films...and i think they ONLY got nominated because of the traditional hollywood A-list names

movie of the decade.

i have ZERO idea why it was shitted on so much. It was one of the most amazing films i've watched in the last 10 yrs as well. I thought about the movie so long after i watched it. it was just beautiful,: the characters & the cinematography

and it was the best thing Colin Farrell's been in so far. The problem is that the Academy tends to nominate films that many people have at least heard of prior to the show. The New World came and went entirely too quickly and people underappreciated (which is what usually happens to Malick). And some people found it to be boring, which I attribute to having a very short attention span.

I remember coming out the movie and I was the only person with a smile on my face. Everyone else looked drained.
---------------------------------------
http://i31.tinypic.com/4iehdd.jpg

The OKP® King of the Late Pass™
---------------------------------------

Chocolat was horrbile imo

...And I'm dead serious about this.

you mean to tell me the cider house rules deserved a best pic nod, and the first matrix didn't?

if you're in a 17th century costume, you might as well get your Oscar Date on the horn.


meanwhile, if you're in a movie with CGI, Spacecraft, or Aliens? fuhgettaboutit. You'll be a Crowd Favorite, and rake in a gazillion bucks at the box office, but you'll ignored by the Academy.

Zodiac, no! for the reasons homie already posted, even though id give it a @@@/5. michael clayton is miles a better movie, only no country and there will be blood where better. now 2007 was a movie year. add before the devil knows your dead, we own the night, juno, sweeny todd, charlie wilsons war and the grandhouse and that's a fuckin extravaganza. i mean i thought borne ultimatum was the shit too. and B4 a second and third viewing i thought transformers was good

Neither is really a traditional choice, but Once kind of stands alone in what it accomplishes. My favorite film from that year.

but the Academy typically has one movie that they know people saw and liked. I'm not saying Juno wasn't good.....but it didn't deserve that nod.

Movies Better Than Juno:

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Once
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Assassination of Jesse James
etc.
---------------------------------------
http://i37.tinypic.com/5x8u9k.gif

The OKP® King of the Late Pass™
---------------------------------------

Zodiac over M.C.
nope
Zodiac is in no way deserved a best picture nomination
no way
Micheal Clayton is a good film
but still there were others from 07 i liked more