Best Picture Oscar Winners : The Good, The Bad and The Really?

I

Ugh - I thought ET was very mediocre. Sappy sentimental Spielberg at his most cloying. I guess it's fine for children.

I thought Gandhi was quite good. I have no problem with it winning.

I thought Blade Runner, King of Comedy and 48 Hours were better than most of the nominees, but that's not where the Academy was in 1982.

The Academy awards are a big deal for the film industry. I think their Best Picture nominees are almost always at least "good," and worth watching. IMO they don't usually represent the best of the best that was released in the particular year, but there are reasons for that. For example, there are a *lot* of voters and there is a lot of internal lobbying. Due to those circumstances, something "new" and/or experimental isn't going to win the award unless it catches fire and becomes the "it" thing. But if it does, then it can develop a momentum that doesn't allow it to get fairly compared against other risk-taking films (I'm thinking of Shape of Water here, which I thought was poorly done). Still, the votes are cast by people who know what they are doing, and the winner + the nominees often serve as benchmarks for where the Academy as a whole is, at any given time. Again, it goes without saying that these awards are important, but they don't mean *everything* They are a snapshot of where a particular community is, at a particular time. It's not a *tragedy* if a great film flies under the radar and develops a reputation that is superior to the crop of films that had been nominated in that year. That stuff happens. A film fan that doesn't have any personal stake, IMO can only get angry at the Oscars if you assign greater importance to their nominees and winners than is appropriate. I'm always fascinated by what they nominate and I try to see all of them before the awards. But - as I said - the sheer size of the voting community prevents the best of the best from being nominated in most years, because there will be regressions to the mean. Sentiment, predictability and "Hollywood-ness" will often prevail over more interesting fare.

 

"Gandhi" is the weakest of that bunch. I very much wanted "ET" to win but "Tootsie" or "Verdict" would've been worthy as well.

Haven't seen "Missing" since 1983 so I can't remember!

"Pond" was pretty awful too, though!

 

Here ' s one year when the Academy got it right.
1972: ' The Godfather '
It was up against ' Caberet ' , ' Deliverance ' , ' Sounder ' and ' The Emigrants '---all fine movies but....

 

"Great Dictator" got noms in all the big categories!

 

But Fosse won for Best Director over FFC!

 

Not only the winner, but the slate of nominees—the best ever by the Academy, IMO.

 

Wow...…..the 1975 Academy Awards had The Godfather Part II, Chinatown, and The Conversation as nominees for best picture.....very difficult for me to choose between those three.

 

I'd need to dig into IMDB for a refresher, but I think there've been stronger years than 1972...

 

I'm probably partial to 1975: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Barry Lyndon, Dog Day Afternooon, Jaws, Nashville.

Hard to beat that, IMO.

And the directors - you've got Kubrick, Scorsese, Spielberg and Altman. That's four of the heaviest heavyweights in the industry (apologies to the very fine Milos Forman).

 

Kramer vs Kramer was a film ahead of its time...….It was virtually unheard of for a father to fight for custody of his child in 1979. Both Meryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman were phenomenal.

 

Whatever else you come up with, I will disagree. That’s not an opinion I came up with today...

(Unless you mean a really long time ago, where I haven’t seen every nominee.)

 

Barry Lyndon is the weak link for me there. Otherwise I agree: an extremely strong field.

 

The loons! the loons! I think it was seen as a farewell to two acting legends, get them in something semi decent where they can show off their chops and throw some awards at them, I haven't watched it since it came out....I only remember Hepburn talking about the loons and jane jumping in the lake

ps paul newman was robbed. shouldn't won for the verdict. no offense to sir ben

 

1975 was a killer year! Each of those could be considered a legit classic!

 

The already-mentioned 1975 was stronger.

Though I admit I never saw 2 of the 5 noms from 1972.

I actively dislike "Cabaret", so that disqualifies 1972 from greatness right there!

 

For me, "Nashville" is the weakest of the 5. Never cottoned to that one - it's more a collection of gimmicks than a well-done movie...

 

"Pond" got that sentimental vote, but it's really a pretty sappy movie. Cast lesser actors and it gets no attention...

 

1972 would be stronger, IMO, if they got Fat City and maybe even Last Tango in there.

 

And of course you already saw my response about 1975, whereas I don’t think there’s even one weak candidate from 1972.

 

"Cabaret" = weak! Weak weak weak weak weak!

 

I told you: You’re not going to find another year where I don’t find what I consider a weak candidate. I’ve gone through them all.

 

Have you tried 1975? I hear that year was good!

 

Right, those songs, that direction, that cinematography, Joel Gray. Cabaret truly has nothing to offer the discerning viewer.

 

I didn't care for it. I'd need to reread my review to offer specifics, but I found it lacking...

 

Oh crap—you’re right! Why didn’t I think of that one before?

That might be my #2 year, though—I’d have to go through them all again to make sure.