Holy shit, I didn't realize Adaption, City of God, and About Schmidt were options for 2002. None of them were even nominated!? It's stuff like that that makes me ultimately not give a hot fart about Academy Awards.

Yeah Gangs of New York seems quite easily to be Scorcesse's weakest big film for me and so I'm glad this isn' the one he finally won for. In fact, as a whole I think I prefer Chicago as a film - but the real snubs that year are for LOTR and Adaptation. Heck even films like Road to Perdition, Catch Me If You Can and 8 Mile are probably better overall than Gangs for me.

For whatever reason Big Pete, City of God wasn't eligible until the next year and actually got four different nominations which is a big deal for a foreign language film.

The real snub is that DDL didn't win in what is probably my favourite performance of his. Totally captivating and every time he appears you think "That is Bill the Butcher and he is frightening." Unfortunately part of the films real weakness is that every time Cameron Diaz (and to a lesser extent Leo at times) appears, you think "and there's Cameron Diaz - why is she here and why is her accent so bad?" Such poor casting really lets the film down and it's a bit too long as well.

Feb 12, 2018 23:10:29 GMT PB said:

Yeah Gangs of New York seems quite easily to be Scorcesse's weakest big film for me and so I'm glad this isn' the one he finally won for. In fact, as a whole I think I prefer Chicago as a film - but the real snubs that year are for LOTR and Adaptation. Heck even films like Road to Perdition, Catch Me If You Can and 8 Mile are probably better overall than Gangs for me.

For whatever reason Big Pete , City of God wasn't eligible until the next year and actually got four different nominations which is a big deal for a foreign language film.

The real snub is that DDL didn't win in what is probably my favourite performance of his. Totally captivating and every time he appears you think "That is Bill the Butcher and he is frightening." Unfortunately part of the films real weakness is that every time Cameron Diaz (and to a lesser extent Leo at times) appears, you think "and there's Cameron Diaz - why is she here and why is her accent so bad?" Such poor casting really lets the film down and it's a bit too long as well.

Didn't even dawn on me that this was the same year as Catch Me If You Can , god damn now that is a snub. I agree on 8 Mile as well , but that movie ain't ever getting nominated even in the weakest of years.

I would take Road to Perdition as well. Good flick. 

LOTR is unique. I always consider it one giant film that was released in stages. It isn't a standard trilogy. It is based on a single book and was entirely planned and filmed as one giant production. This isn't like making a film and then 2, 3, 5 years later deciding to make a sequel to it.

If you think of them as standalone films then The Two Towers is the best, because the ROTK has such a crazily long ending because it is really wrapping up a 10/11-hour film. It is obvious that they were all waiting for ROTK to come out and that its clean-sweep at the Oscars was for the LOTR in its entirety.

As others have said, DDL was the real snub, not Gangs. That would've been worse than Scorsese finally getting his Oscars for The Departed.

2002 was a weak year imo for actual nominees, my pick would have been Road To Perdition but it wasn't even nominated (which is the biggest snub of 2002). I'm not into Lord Of The Rings and Chicago from a production standpoint looked really good, no real gripe here.

Fargo

While I have not seen this film in a long time, I definitely recall enjoying it a lot. It was not on my snub list since I have not seen The English Patient. In fact, I have never even heard of it which makes me a bit surprised that a lot of people seem to know it by reputation alone.

Anyway, some of you mentioned the accents and how they overdid/exaggerated them and while I can certainly see why this would annoy people, it adds a lot to the humor they were going for in the movie. It isn't that the accents themselves are funny, it is actually the fact that they are overdone. The entire movie through and through just contains this air of utter absurdity. The accents are ridiculous on purpose in an attempt to infuse watchers with this sense of absurdity.

Of course it doesn't work with everyone. I was kind of put off by the accents thing myself at first and thought it was dumb. Yet, as the movie built up and all this crazy stuff was happening then the fifth time someone threw in a "you betcha" on top of it, I was laughing. It takes a special kind of sense of humor and I'm certainly not saying it's something most people have, but I'm pretty sure that's the target watcher they had in mind with it. I am the only person I know that couldn't stop laughing throughout The Shining and There Will Be Blood, so I'm easily placed in the minority.

Apocalypse Now

One of the earliest truly phenomenal movies I ever watched. I hadn't seen too many movies of this caliber at the time that I watched it, so I was absolutely glued to my seat in amazement through most of it. The sheer quality of the cinematography and acting in this movie alone are enough to cement it in history as an important film. The atmosphere is wonderful as well and really draws you into the movie far more than most films. I will admit the long weird montage sequence near the ending got a little too artsy/funkadelic for me, but that did little to diminish my overall love for the movie. I can see why many would not enjoy the somewhat slow story, but there is much to appreciate about this film even if you're not crazy about it. I did not vote for this one either since I have not seen Kramer vs Kramer.

Gangs of New York

While I do think this is an amazing movie, it is my least favorite Scorsese film. There seemed to be a little too much violence for the sake of violence without much of a story to get behind or any character development. I would enjoy to watch it again, but I would much rather watch Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Aviator, Departed, Shutter Island, etc again which are also amazing movies that I also enjoy a lot more.

In any case, I have not seen Chicago so it was not an option for me to vote for.



Unfortunately for me, it seems my #1 did not make it on the top ten or it would have surely showed up by now. Oh well. I'll talk about it once the list is through. I hope the next movie ends up being one that was on my list at all since there hasn't been one thus far... 

7. Raiders of the Lost Ark 

You want to talk to God? Let's go see him together, I've got nothing better to do. ~ Indiana Jones 

Released 

1981 

Credits 

Director: Steven Spielberg 

Writer: George Lucas 

Writer: Lawrence Kasdan 

Cast 

Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones)

Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood)

Paul Freeman (Belloq)

Ronald Lacey (Toht)

John Rhys-Davies (Sallah)

Critical 

8.5/10 (IMDB)

94% (RT Critics)

96% (RT Audience)

Snubbed By 

Chariots of Fire 

Oscars It Did Win 

- Best Art Direction 

- Best Sound 

- Best Film Editing 

- Best Visual Effects 

Other Nominations 

- Best Director 

- Best Cinematography 

- Best Music ; Original Score 

I don't know what to make of this inclusion , I actually watched Raiders for the first time in a couple decades a week or so ago , so I could revisit it and show my kid because he's suddenly into treasure hunting and stuff. I walked away not being terribly impressed with it , it definitely has it's moments and some of it is really cool but I hate the few times it goes into weird slapstick type comedy and felt it was so out of place. That actual adventure parts are fun , it's everything in between I could do without.

I respect the fact that it came out in 1981 and was really an important film in the adventure/action genre and for that I would probably argue that it deserved the Oscar that year. I haven't seen Chariots of Fire but what I understand of it is that it's just the type of movie that's going to win the Oscar and not have much cinematic impact years later. Whether one loves ROTLA or not , you can't really deny the impact it's had on pop culture and cinema all these years later.

1.
2.
3. Gangs of New York (winner: Chicago)
4.
5.
6. Apocalypse Now! (winner: Kramer vs. Kramer)
7.
8.
9.
10.

Gangs of New York should be higher. Chicago beating it is like if La La Land actually won Best Picture last year instead of a deserving winner. It was pure musical Oscar bait and it worked. Barf.

Raiders of the Lost Ark was on my list for a bit, but fell off eventually. Chariots of Fire is a pretty good movie, and I don't believe it was really a 'snub,' just a good movie beating another good movie that I prefer more.

I guess Fargo gets a lot of love, and deservedly so. I love that movie too, but I didn't think it was that much of a snub losing to a movie like The English Patient. That was a great film too. Fargo would probably make a top 15 list for me.

I'm looking at my list and I kind of wish I placed Apocalypse Now! higher. Kramer vs. Kramer was such a dumb movie to win Best Picture, especially over a masterpiece like that. Apocalypse Now! is just so good and fresh and insane. I don't know how it lost.

Raiders of the Lost Ark was my #1, which honestly surprised me. The thing is, Chariots of Fire is merely an OK sports movie with one killer track. It doesn't elevate it's genre at all and seemingly gets a free pass despite all the boring montages.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is the greatest adventure movie of all-time and it's omission has been made to look awful. Not only is it referenced to this day, it inspired a legion of independent film makers to go out and make their own fan movies. While it may not be socially conscious, there's few films that celebrate the art of telling a good story and nails each component so well.

This was one of those cases where Raiders was clearly the best film of all the nominees, while Chariots happened to be the weakest and still won.

FYI - Das Boot, Mad Max 2, Possession, Scanners, Gallipoli and Christiane F (among others) would have all taken precedence over Chariots.

Feb 13, 2018 15:23:24 GMT Big Pete said:

Raiders of the Lost Ark was my #1, which honestly surprised me. The thing is, Chariots of Fire is merely an OK sports movie with one killer track. It doesn't elevate it's genre at all and seemingly gets a free pass despite all the boring montages.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is the greatest adventure movie of all-time and it's omission has been made to look awful. Not only is it referenced to this day, it inspired a legion of independent film makers to go out and make their own fan movies. While it may not be socially conscious, there's few films that celebrate the art of telling a good story and nails each component so well.

This was one of those cases where Raiders was clearly the best film of all the nominees, while Chariots happened to be the weakest and still won.

FYI - Das Boot, Mad Max 2, Possession, Scanners, Gallipoli and Christiane F (among others) would have all taken precedence over Chariots.

Oh, shit! I didn't realize Gallipoli was from the same year. That was both the better movie about running and the better movie overall. It wasn't even nominated though, was it? It would've worked quite possibly made my snub list. Fucking LOVED Gallipoli. Heart wrenching stuff.

Raiders was a great movie. But it wasn't even the biggest snub coming out of 1981. IMO, On Golden Pond was better.

Feb 13, 2018 14:28:56 GMT UT said:

I don't know what to make of this inclusion , I actually watched Raiders for the first time in a couple decades a week or so ago , so I could revisit it and show my kid because he's suddenly into treasure hunting and stuff. I walked away not being terribly impressed with it , it definitely has it's moments and some of it is really cool but I hate the few times it goes into weird slapstick type comedy and felt it was so out of place. That actual adventure parts are fun , it's everything in between I could do without.

I'm sure it was a groundbreaking movie at its time, and Big Pete has done a great job in describing its legacy and influence, but I watched it for the first time about a year ago, and had a similar opinion to UT. Parts of the film haven't aged well at all, such as the comedy, but overall it is a pretty fun movie and a staple of the 80s. I'm not sure why I didn't consider this for my list. I guess that I just assumed Chariots of Fire to be a great film that deservedly won Best Picture, because I haven't seen it, have no idea what it's about, and so would know no better.

I love Chariots of Fire. I love Raiders as well, but Chariots is really good. I don't think I've considered any of the films listed so far as snubs. :lol:

I’ve not seen either of those movies. The last Indy movie is the only one I’ve seen of the series, though you can’t argue the originals impact on the genre.

Even if it is only one scene Chariots has one of the most parodied and iconic scenes in movie history. Plus it is an inspiring story and fits the Oscar mold which is a tough combo to beat. I guess the comedy scenes from Raiders haven't aged well since it was a deliberate tribute to those corny 1930's adventure serials. Raiders is on my all time favorite list but Chariots hit all the right notes to get the nod.

Raiders was my #7. One of the absolute greatest movies of all-time and definitely should have won best picture. Chariots of Fire is good, not great. None of the others were on my list.

Raiders was my #4. It easily left the biggest mark of any film made in 1981 and it's really not even close. It's the single greatest action-adventure movie ever made, and still holds up over 30 years later.

Feb 14, 2018 2:54:54 GMT thereallt said:

Raiders was my #4. It easily left the biggest mark of any film made in 1981 and it's really not even close. It's the single greatest action-adventure movie ever made, and still holds up over 30 years later.

I strongly disagree on at least two of those.

Never saw Chariots to say, Raiders was a great movie, the best of the Indy flicks.

For a movie of it's genre, Indiana Jones is still surprisingly watchable. Of course it was a genre revival of adventure movies like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Lost Horizon, but if you look at it's contemporaries like The Jewel of the Nile, High Road To China or even Romancing The Stone it's leaps and bounds the better film.

Feb 14, 2018 5:59:05 GMT Big Pete said:

For a movie of it's genre, Indiana Jones is still surprisingly watchable. Of course it was a genre revival of adventure movies like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Lost Horizon, but if you look at it's contemporaries like The Jewel of the Nile, High Road To China or even Romancing The Stone it's leaps and bounds the better film.

I don't know , watchable might be an apt word but I don't know how well the movie as a whole really holds up. Those comedy bits really kill the flow of the movie and it's rather blah when Indy isn't doing Indy things. I don't know about those movies you compare it to but I haven't seen them , but compared to some other iconic movies of the 80's I don't think it's as good. I'd be curious to see what the sequels are like in comparison to the original but have to wait until me and the kid have some time together. 

6. The Shawshank Redemption 

I guess it comes down a simple choice: Get busy living, or get busy dying. ~ Andy 

Released 

1994 

Credits 

Director: Frank Darabont 

Writer: Stephen King 

Writer: Frank Darabont 

Cast 

Tim Robbins (Andy Dufresne) 

Morgan Freeman (Red Redding)

Bob Gunton (Warden Norton)

William Sadler (Heywood)

James Whitmore (Brooks)

Critical 

9.3 (IMDB)

91% (RT Critics)

98% (RT Audience)

Snubbed By 

Forrest Gump 

Oscars It Did Win 

- None 

Other Nominations 

- Best Lead Actor 

- Best Screenplay Based on Previous Material 

- Best Cinematography 

- Best Sound 

- Best Film Editing 

- Best Music , Original Score 

PW is going through it's own movie cycle , first with the Gump love and now apparently some backlash with people claiming it snubbed a movie at the Oscars. Awesome.

I still haven't had a movie from my list make the top ten but I do love me Shawshank , I also love Forrest Gump though and don't consider this much of a snub at all - but there's a lot people out there who do so PW as a collective isn't alone. I think the movies are pretty equal all things considered , I have more affection towards Forrest Gump because I've loved it for longer but Shawshank is a recent addition to my favorite movies collection and holds one of my favorite quotes of all time "Get busy livin' , or get busy dyin'".

It's not crazy to me it lost Best Picture , but it is crazy that is somehow walked away from the Oscars without a single win in any category. I would of least thrown them a bone and gave them screenplay or something.

Shawshank is great, but it isn’t the best movie from that year & didn’t make my list. Another movie from that year made my list.

Gump is great. Shawshank is greater.

Feb 14, 2018 17:13:39 GMT SM said:

Shawshank is great, but it isn’t the best movie from that year & didn’t make my list. Another movie from that year made my list.

Forrest Gump won the Oscar , it doesn't qualify for a snub SM. 


Also in a pretty well known tidbit of movie history , that connects these two movies: Tom Hanks was offered the role of Andy , but obviously declined because of Forrest Gump. How different is Shawshank with Hanks? Does it draw at the Box Office? It would of had to be put on hold though I'm happy it didn't because Tim Robbins ended up being damn near perfect in the role. 

Hanks and his charisma and acting ability is what elevates Forrest to Shawshanks level , and I can't imagine anyone else in that role while still making the movie as successful. 

Feb 14, 2018 17:22:37 GMT UT said:

Feb 14, 2018 17:13:39 GMT SM said:

Shawshank is great, but it isn’t the best movie from that year & didn’t make my list. Another movie from that year made my list.

Forrest Gump won the Oscar , it doesn't qualify for a snub SM. 


Also in a pretty well known tidbit of movie history , that connects these two movies: Tom Hanks was offered the role of Andy , but obviously declined because of Forrest Gump. How different is Shawshank with Hanks? Does it draw at the Box Office? It would of had to be put on hold though I'm happy it didn't because Tim Robbins ended up being damn near perfect in the role. 

Hanks and his charisma and acting ability is what elevates Forrest to Shawshanks level , and I can't imagine anyone else in that role while still making the movie as successful. 

Nic Cage, duh.

Forrest Gump was a one-man show, and Tom Hanks deserved the Oscar for it. But as a movie, it wasn't the best that year. There were two others that deserved the honor more than Gump did.

Feb 14, 2018 17:46:43 GMT CM Punk'd said:

Forrest Gump was a one-man show, and Tom Hanks deserved the Oscar for it. But as a movie, it wasn't the best that year. There were two others that deserved the honor more than Gump did.

With all due respect , that's a pretty dumb thing to say about Forrest Gump. Sally Field was nothing short of remarkable in that movie , Gary Sinise was great as Lt. Dan and had a great ark through the movie and even Robin Wright as Jenny was really fucking good , I'd put that cast of four up against any of the others that were in contention that year. 

Tom Hanks was great as well , and the movie doesn't work without him - but the movie also doesn't work without a great supporting cast of memorable characters and great performances. Tom Hanks is just on such a different level as a lead that he brings it to a different , Oscar worthy level.