10 Worst Best Picture Decisions

[McBain]

1. Oliver! - they forgot 2001
2. Cavalcade - um, what about King Kong
3. Annie Hall - good film, but Star Wars!!!!
4. Kramer vs Kramer - Apocalypse Now!!!!
5. Chariots Of Fire - Raiders of The Lost ark
6. Out Of Stinkin Africa - Brazil or BTTF
7. Driving Miss Daisy? - Do The Right Thing

keep it goin, i'm pretty sure most of them are wrong. And who's even heard of some of the best pic winners before 1950?

[screamer581]

Those are pretty good older choices, for a newer one , I would have to say Titanic, it didn't suck, but any film that year (well besides The Full Monty) desrved it more, Good Will, LA, and As Good.

[QUENTIN]

1.Forrest Gump -Pulp Fiction
2.Rocky -Taxi Driver
3.How Green Was My Valley -Citizen Kane
4.Oliver -2001
5.Shakespeare in Love -Dark City
6.The English Patient -Fargo
7.Driving Miss Daisy -Do The Right Thing
8.Dances With Wolves -GoodFellas
9.All The Kings Men -The Third Man
10.The French Connection -TFC was great, but C'mon A Clockwork Orange

[timothysternberg]

This will cause some controversy but my worst Oscar was actually from last year.

American Beauty --- Boys Don't Cry

I did not like American Beauty and still do not understand the hype.

[Gian-Sergio]

1.Chicago-The Pianist
2.Forest Gump-Pulp Fiction
3.The Return Of The King-KILL BILL!
4.Rocky-Taxi Driver
5.Amadeus-Once Upon A Time In America
6.Ordinary People-Raging Bull
7.Kramer Vs. Kramer-Apocalypse Now
8.Gladiator-Amores Perros
9.Shakespeare in Love-Saving Private Ryan or Dark City
10.American Beauty-Magnolia

[APzombie]

Most great films that dont win on these lists are often beat out by other great films (take Forrest Gump, Rocky, The French Connection, ect).

Sometimes great films are beat out by ho-hum pictures, I think my main vote goes to Shakespeare in Love - Saving Private Ryan

[Briare Rabbit]

10 The Great Escape is snubbed; Tom Jones wins
9 Wings trumps Sunrise for best all 'round picture
8 Return of the King beats Mystic River
7 Victory Through Air Power is ignored; moralizing Bing Crosby wins gold
6 Ordinary People beats Raging Bull AND The Elephant Man
5 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest beats Dog Day Afternoon
4 The English Patient beats Fargo; Trainspotting is snubbed
3 Forrest Gump beats out.... a lot of stuff
2 Rocky beats out Network AND All the President's Men AND Taxi Driver AND Marathon Man
1 West Side Story beats Judgment at Nuremberg

[bluesbrother965]

I'm going to just use ones where I think the movie that won didn't even come close to deserving it, so don't expect to see Kramer Vs. Kramer, Forrest Gump, Rocky, etc. on my list. Thes aren't in any order.

1. Around The World In Eighty Days- this was a pretty crappy year, except for Giant which somehow avoided winning best picture and best actor despite having two nominations, both great performances. I've heard Eighty Days sucks.

2. An American In Paris- I just don't like the Gene Kelly variety of musicals at all, Streetcar Named Desire or A Place In The Sun should have won.

3. Ben-Hur- ...and North By Northwest wasn't even nominated...

4. West Side Story- The Hustler is so much better.

5. My Fair Lady- Maybe I just don't like musicals in general, there are only a couple I've seen and liked, Dr. Strangelove is far superior.

6. Sound of Music- Another musical, I far prefer Doctor Zhivago.

7. Dance With Wolves- It's ok, but pales in comparison to Goodfellas.

The only seven I know of that I consider major injustices.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by APzombie

Sometimes great films are beat out by ho-hum pictures, I think my main vote goes to Shakespeare in Love - Saving Private Ryan


Without a doubt the worst decision the Academy has EVER made!


Also, while A Beautiful Mind was a very good movie, Fellowship of the Ring was a masterpiece and should have won!

[Ted Pikul]

Academy voting is democracy in action if you ask me.

The dull conservative choice always wins.

A bit like Dubya will in November;)

[Hannibal21]

Shakespeare in Love - I seriously do NOT understand the hype at ALL behind this mediocrity. There were soooooooo many better films that year.

Braveheart - All the other movies nominated Best Picture were much more deserving, more than this turd.

Forrest Gump - It undeservedly beat a lot of movies, but what really pisses me off is it beating PULP FICTION!!!

Driving Miss Daisy - I think most of my favorite movies from that year weren't even nominated, namely Say Anything and Red Sorghum.

Kramer vs. Kramer - Good performances, but it's extremely forgettable otherwise. Apocalypse Now was fuckin' ROBBED! :mad:

Oliver! - Good musical but FAAAAARRRR from Academy Awards material. I can't believe 2001 wasn't even nominated!

Tom Jones - LOL, I don't even know what to say on behalf of this winning.

Around the World in 80 Days - 1956 wasn't exactly a spectacular year, but great movies like Giant and Anastasia would've been my choice, not this major snore of a film.

An American in Paris - Streetcar, African Queen, A Place in the Sun, Strangers on a Train, etc. were all far better than this one.

Going My Way - Good movie but better than Double Indemnity? I don't think so.

[Trinity]

1951: An American in Paris - good movie, but over The African Queen, Quo Vadis and most of all, A Streetcar Named Desire?!

2001: A Beautiful Mind - again, good movie, but NOT over Moulin Rouge!

1995: Braveheart over Sense and Sensibility (to choose just from the actual nominees)

And the biggest one-

1936: The Great Ziegfeld - over My Man Godfrey, Modern Times, Swing Time, Libeled Lady, Dodsworth, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town etc.

[Strider]

TITANIC

The worst Best Picture decision the Academy has ever made!

A visually stunning film, but emotionally hollow, filled with poor acting and poor dialogue, a weak script, and a particular Celine Dion song that makes you want to commit suicide every time you hear it. I absolutely despised this film, and it didn't deserve to win. The honor should have gone to L.A. Confidential or As Good As It Gets instead. Unfortunately for those films, they didn't gross a billion dollars worldwide.

Strider

[Raging Bull080]

I was just looking at the list of Best Picture winners and I have to say they certainly have made some terrible decisions, and in my opinion they are wrong more than they are right. Now I haven't seen alot of older films so I probably missed alot of their bad decisions, but 12 really did jump out at me as bad choices.

12. Driving Miss Daisy- Born on the Fourth of July should have, this might be the weakest Best Picture winner ever

11. The Lord of the Rings 3- a controversial pick but Mystic River should have won

10. Rocky- great movie but it isn't Taxi Driver, not even close

9. Titanic- L.A. Confidential is far superior

8. Kramer vs. Kramer- good movie but not even close to Apocalypse Now

7. Forrest Gump- Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show, take your pick, all are much better

6. Chicago- Gangs of New York, I think time will prove me correct

5. Shakespeare in Love- Saving Private Ryan, I am still in shock from that ceremony

4. Around the World in 80 Days- another how in the hell did this win type of movie, one of the worst ever to be awarded the honor, The Searchers should have won

3. The Greatest Show on Earth- yet another how in the hell did this ever win type of movie, High Noon by a mile

2. How Green Was My Valley- Citizen Kane, enough said

1. Ordinary People- lets just forget that both The Stunt Man and The Elephant Man were much better movies, because 1980 just happened to be the same year Raging Bull was made, end of story. However what really makes me angry is that Redford has an Oscar that the great Martin Scorsese should have today

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Wings trumps Sunrise for best all 'round picture

Actually Sunrise won for "Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production" while Wings "Best Picture, Production". Basically there were two best picture categories back then: one for independant movies and one for studio films.

[Ted Pikul]

Sounds like a good idea that should be re-introduced.

At least that way one film a year should be worthy of it's "Best Picture" accolade.

[optimusprime]

Titanic didn't deserve shit over As Good As It Gets. Apocalypse Now was robbed, so was Raging Bull.
Rocky > Taxi Driver, Network
that's just the way I feel

Shakespeare in Love's victory over Saving Private Ryan was one of the biggest injustices in the history of the world!

Forrest Gump, although a good movie, shouldn't have won. The Oscar in 1994 should have gone to The Shawshank Fuckin' Redemption (which is also ten times better than Pulp Fiction).

[SpacePuppet]

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Beats Jaws.

Forrest Gump Beats Pulp Fiction

LOTR Beats Mystic River

[Tayzlor]

01. Raging Bull (Ordinary People)
02. Apocalypse Now (Kramer vs. Kramer)
03. Taxi Driver & Network (Rocky)
04. 2001: A Space Odyssey (In the Heat of the Night)
05. Leaving Las Vegas (Braveheart)
06. Fargo (The English Patient)
07. Lost In Translation (The Return of the King)
08. A Clockwork Orange (The French Connection)
09. Chinatown & The Conversation (The Godfather Part II)
10. Five Easy Pieces (Patton)

[Ted Pikul]

The only trouble with that list (IMHO) is that 8,9 & 10 are the wrong way round.

I guess sometimes the Academy does get it right after all.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Tayzlor
10. Five Easy Pieces (Patton)

If one is to use the order you used to describe your other choices, then this is in the wrong order.

[ChemicalRomance]

I've only got one.

Though FOREST GUMP is a great...great, GREAT movie..PULP FICTION really did deserve the Best Picture trophy that year. I personally believe it wasn't given it becuase everyone considered the movie at the time to be "far too violent." Oh well, PULP FICTION still lives on as one of the best movie's of the 90's or ever.

[Tayzlor]

Originally posted by MacReady
If one is to use the order you used to describe your other choices, then this is in the wrong order.

Yeah, I suppose so. But what's it to you?

[wyodebbie]

2004 - Lord of The Rings - Mystic River
2003 - Chicago - Gangs of New York
2002 - A Beautiful Mind - Moulin Rouge
1993 - Unforgiven - The Crying Game
1991 - Dances With Wolves - Goodfellas
1989 - Rain Main - Dangerous Liaisons
1980 - Kramer Vs. Kramer - Apocalypse Now
1966 - Sound Of Music - Dr. Zhivago
1945 - Going My Way - Double Idemnity
1941 - Rebecca - Grapes of Wrath

[optimusprime]

Originally posted by ChemicalRomance
I've only got one.

Though FOREST GUMP is a great...great, GREAT movie..PULP FICTION really did deserve the Best Picture trophy that year. I personally believe it wasn't given it becuase everyone considered the movie at the time to be "far too violent." Oh well, PULP FICTION still lives on as one of the best movie's of the 90's or ever.

That would be The Shawshank Redemption, not Pulp Fiction...

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by bluesbrother965
1. Around The World In Eighty Days- this was a pretty crappy year, except for Giant which somehow avoided winning best picture and best actor despite having two nominations, both great performances. I've heard Eighty Days sucks.


If you've only HEARD it sucks, than you shouldn't be saying anything, let alone putting it at number 1.

Giant isnt even the best western of that year, by the way.

As for Sunrise, I knew that it and Wings both won "best picture" awards, but it should be cited in the books as best picture, not Wings.

[Gone in 60sec]

Goodfells(Dances with Wolves)
The Shawshank Redemption(Forrest Gump)
Fargo or Jerry Maguire(The English Patient)
Magnolia(American Beauty)
Black Hawk Down or The Fellowship of the Ring(A Beautiful Mind)
Catch Me If You Can or The Two Towers(Chicago)

And I think The Lord of the Rings should've won but I really think The Last Samurai should've one.


The BIGGEST disappointment is 1998 Saving Private Ryan should of won.

[Briare Rabbit]

Am I the ONLY one who thinks that Shakespear in Love is better than Saving Private Ryan? Love is a silky, smoothly done, well acted piece of film making, not great, but certainly good enough.

Saving Private Ryan is tepid bullshit.

[bigred760]

10. Forrest Gump - I love this movie, but Pulp Fiction was better; FG was the "family" choice.

9. A Beautiful Mind - Again, great movie; but the only reason LOTR (and hence Peter Jackson) didn't win was because they were waiting for the next two.

8. My Fair Lady - Out of two musicals, this one wins. Something just ain't right. Don't know what it is, don't really care.

7. Tom Jones - Haven't seen it, but I remember watching three other nominees that year.

6. Chariots of Fire - Raiders of the Lost Ark - enough said; freakin' Academy apparently doesn't like adventure movies - bigoted bastards. :D

5. Rebecca - if you're gonna give Best Picture to Hitchcock's movie, give Best Director to Hitchcock. Or else just give it to Grapes of Wrath

4. How Green Was My Valley - Great movie, but Citizen Kane should've gotten it.

3. Kramer vs. Kramer - Pass up Apocalypse Now? Why? Because of Coppola's Godfather I & II? Not good reasons enough.

2. Shakespeare in Love - you give Spielberg the director Oscar, but not Best Picture? WTF?

1. Titanic - never saw it, but I think the hype and box office take brought it the Oscar. Not forgetting that James Cameron made a total arrogant ass of himself.

[bluesbrother965]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
If you've only HEARD it sucks, than you shouldn't be saying anything, let alone putting it at number 1.

Giant isnt even the best western of that year, by the way.


I actually agree with you, this is the first time I can ever remember having done this, I just can't stand the fact that Giant, which I consider a great movie, lost to a movie that I have literally never heard a good opinion on. Good point on bringing up the Searchers, which I have seen, but I think Giant was better. You've got your opinion and I've got mine.

I also said at the top of the post that they aren't in any order, so I didn't necessarily consider it my number one choice.

[Maeljin_incarna]

Gladiator was entertaining, but no way in hell should it have won Best Picture over Traffic.

[Raging Bull080]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Am I the ONLY one who thinks that Shakespear in Love is better than Saving Private Ryan? Love is a silky, smoothly done, well acted piece of film making, not great, but certainly good enough.

Saving Private Ryan is tepid bullshit.


Why is it tepid bullshit. It is a masterful film with great performances. I can't imagine anyone not being impressed with the realism of this movie and the master filmaking that is behind it. It is one of the greatest war movies ever. World War II was a very dark and horrible time for this country, and this film shows the real true horror of war like I have never seen. From my perspective the only way not to be impressed and moved by this movie is to not like the genre. Come on, that Omaha Beach scene was both horrifying in it's realism and also completely exhilarating at the same time.

[Ted Pikul]

There was a lot of schmaltz that followed it though.

Although I do think it's a better film than Shakespeare In Love.

[Squid Vicious]

1) Shakespeare in Love (over Saving Private Ryan???)
2) How Green Was My Valley (over Citizen Kane???)
3) The English Patient (over Fargo???)
4) Titanic (hell, anything would've been better than Titanic! Well, maybe not anything. But LA Confidential would've done.)
5) Ordinary People (over Raging Bull???)
6) Rocky (over Taxi Driver???)
7) Driving Miss Daisy (over Born on the Fourth of July??? And where was Do the Right Thing???)
8) Chariots of Fire (over Raiders of the Lost Ark???)
9) My Fair Lady (over Dr. Strangelove???)
10) Chicago (over Gangs of New York???)

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Tayzlor
But what's it to you?

Nothing, it just bothered me.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Raging Bull080
Why is it tepid bullshit. It is a masterful film with great performances. I can't imagine anyone not being impressed with the realism of this movie and the master filmaking that is behind it. It is one of the greatest war movies ever. World War II was a very dark and horrible time for this country, and this film shows the real true horror of war like I have never seen. From my perspective the only way not to be impressed and moved by this movie is to not like the genre. Come on, that Omaha Beach scene was both horrifying in it's realism and also completely exhilarating at the same time.

Omaha was the only impressive scene about it. Other than some of it's other battle scenes it is slow, unconvincing, melodramatically over-patriotic, pathetically manipulative and downright... tepid.

War movies are the best kind of films if done right. Schindler's List is a good example of how a man who has as much love for his own people as Spielberg does can make a convincing film. Spielberg made Private Ryan as an almost moralizing film to say "hi" to the Americans, like he did with the Jewish and Schindler's List. Well, except, Schindler's List is moving and convincing drama with less heart and more realism, and not a moment of lost interest, Saving Private Ryan is well, tepid bullshit.

Maybe part of the reason is it's very pro-American and very over-patriotic, and I'm not an American. A lot of the very explicit imagery of American patriotism angered me, and it killed pretty much any emotion over the film for me. This also ruined other films though, for me like Independance Day and Air Force 1.

[APzombie]

What's manipulative about Saving Private Ryan? Would it be a better film if it was anti-American and showed soldiers pissed off at their country?

I don't really understand where you are coming from.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by APzombie
What's manipulative about Saving Private Ryan? Would it be a better film if it was anti-American and showed soldiers pissed off at their country?

Well, probably not that many soldiers in that stage of WW2 were there of their own free will. Would you be pissed off if the American government up-rooted you from your home, sent you to sea, put you in a small boat, pushed you into the ocean then sent you up a beach, like lambs to the slaughter to shoot some Germans. I don't imagine you'd be very happy to be there, would you? Even Canada had the draft in place by 1943, no one wanted to fight any more.

So yes, a bunch of guys looking pissed off because some old man behind a desk took them away from their families to be shot would be realistic. Not the heroistic bullshit, manipulation, war-glorifying garbage Spielberg made.

Tepid. Bull. Shit.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Am I the ONLY one who thinks that Shakespear in Love is better than Saving Private Ryan? Love is a silky, smoothly done, well acted piece of film making, not great, but certainly good enough.

Saving Private Ryan is tepid bullshit.

Agreed. I've written at length about the flaws I find in SPR before. I just wanted to run up tha flag once more. You're dead on, BR.

[Raging Bull080]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
[B]Well, probably not that many soldiers in that stage of WW2 were there of their own free will. Would you be pissed off if the American government up-rooted you from your home, sent you to sea, put you in a small boat, pushed you into the ocean then sent you up a beach, like lambs to the slaughter to shoot some Germans. I don't imagine you'd be very happy to be there, would you? Even Canada had the draft in place by 1943, no one wanted to fight any more.


No I wouldn't be mad if the situation was like it was in World War II, I guess you don't know that on Dec 7th 1941 America was forced into war. We didn't have a choice. If our freedom and our livelihoods were at stake, as they most certainly were in World War II, I would gladly fight. Quite simply there is no other option.

[Slim_JGE]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Well, probably not that many soldiers in that stage of WW2 were there of their own free will. Would you be pissed off if the American government up-rooted you from your home, sent you to sea, put you in a small boat, pushed you into the ocean then sent you up a beach, like lambs to the slaughter to shoot some Germans. I don't imagine you'd be very happy to be there, would you? Even Canada had the draft in place by 1943, no one wanted to fight any more.

So yes, a bunch of guys looking pissed off because some old man behind a desk took them away from their families to be shot would be realistic. Not the heroistic bullshit, manipulation, war-glorifying garbage Spielberg made.

Tepid. Bull. Shit.

Briare,

I have to disagree. Many of the WWII era soldiers were extremely patriotic and happy to do what they saw as their duty to their country. This was not Vietnam, or Iraq. WWII was not fought by the U.S. over a difference in political ideals or for oil, money, or to improve overseas holdings of any kind. It was a war against what they believed and many still believe was pure evil, a madman and his quest for a pure race conquering all that stood in his way (and some that didn't). I don't think there was that large a percentage of soldiers that were bitter at our leaders about being there. Many did in fact sign up to go. The film is a masterfull piece of cinema and one of the best war films ever made (maybe the best) for all of the reasons Raging Bull has stated and then some. Further more, I think the film is an excellant tribute to all who did fight; I've spoken to many vets who were absolutely aw-struck by the film's realsim and attention to detail. The film played almost like a documentary, with a great dramatic back story. There is nothing tepid, or bullshit for that matter about it. The fact that this film did not win best picture over it's competition that year is a farce and in fact was the last straw in my losing all respect for the academy.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Slim_JGE
There is nothing tepid, or bullshit for that matter about it.

*Sigh*

Slim_JGE, no matter how hard you try, you're never gonna change the opinion of another movie on you're on simply by giving reasons why you don't agree. If somebody dosen't like a film, then he/she just dosen't like that film. And I agree with Briare. Most Americans might have felt pride during that final shot, but as a non-American I felt like a robot trying to analyse why a human would cry. It just had no effect on me, and (althought I'm ashamed to admit it) I felt like saying:Why the hell should I care? This isn't my country. It was a folly on Spielberg's part that caused a rift between Non-American viewers and their investment in the film. I also didn't take too happily to the fact that I can't remember a single other country being mentioned in the fight against the Nazis.

[Slim_JGE]

Originally posted by MacReady
*Sigh*

Slim_JGE, no matter how hard you try, you're never gonna change the opinion of another movie on you're on simply by giving reasons why you don't agree. If somebody dosen't like a film, then he/she just dosen't like that film. And I agree with Briare. Most Americans might have felt pride during that final shot, but as a non-American I felt like a robot trying to analyse why a human would cry. It just had no effect on me, and (althought I'm ashamed to admit it) I felt like saying:Why the hell should I care? This isn't my country. It was a folly on Spielberg's part that caused a rift between Non-American viewers and their investment in the film. I also didn't take too happily to the fact that I can't remember a single other country being mentioned in the fight against the Nazis.

I realize I won't change anyone's mind about the film, it's just that some of the assumptions made about the mindset of American soldiers (and probably soldiers from other nations as well, but I won't try to speak for them) were simply incorrect. And as far as Spielberg's "folly" I don't think he saw it as such as he was making a statement with the film as an American and a Jew. Two parties very deeply touched by WWII and many of the incidents surrounding it. Lastly, I'm sorry you felt like you ddin't care about the plight of the soldier because it wasn't your country, but I'm sure that many did as it was an experiance that I'm sure would be hard for anyone to handle. I'm also quite sure that many non-Jews still felt awful watching Schindler's List or the Pianist without sitting back and saying, "they're not my people, why should I care?" Anything I stated regarding the film is simply my opinion and I just wanted to voice that as well. :D

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Raging Bull080
[QUOTE][i]
No I wouldn't be mad if the situation was like it was in World War II, I guess you don't know that on Dec 7th 1941 America was forced into war. We didn't have a choice. If our freedom and our livelihoods were at stake, as they most certainly were in World War II, I would gladly fight. Quite simply there is no other option.

Dont bring Pearl Harbor into it, because it has nothing to do with this. Just because you're forced into country doesn't mean you want to be there.

You also neglected to mention that Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, whilst D-Day was soley to force the Germans out of occupied France.

Also, the film fails to mention the thousands upon thousands of Canadian, British and French troops that also died on d-day. it's impressive, but the fact that it passes itself off as purely fact is sickening.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Slim_JGE
I realize I won't change anyone's mind about the film, it's just that some of the assumptions made about the mindset of American soldiers (and probably soldiers from other nations as well, but I won't try to speak for them) were simply incorrect. And as far as Spielberg's "folly" I don't think he saw it as such as he was making a statement with the film as an American and a Jew. Two parties very deeply touched by WWII and many of the incidents surrounding it. Lastly, I'm sorry you felt like you ddin't care about the plight of the soldier because it wasn't your country, but I'm sure that many did as it was an experiance that I'm sure would be hard for anyone to handle. I'm also quite sure that many non-Jews still felt awful watching Schindler's List or the Pianist without sitting back and saying, "they're not my people, why should I care?" Anything I stated regarding the film is simply my opinion and I just wanted to voice that as well. :D

Yes, but like I stated earlier, Spielberg conveniantly likes to think that the Americans and the Jews were the only ones under fire by the Axis.

Remember Holland? Thousands of Hollanders gassed in concentration camps. French and British soldiers shot in mass amounts. Thousands of Chinese women raped, killed, tortured and mutilated. The Chinese red cross basically peeled 45,000 Chinese women off of the soil of that country- they were throwing themselves down wells to avoid being capture.

The thing is Spielberg makes war movies like SPR that soley focus on the plight of Americans in an international battle, which is all good in my eyes. But when you fail to mention an attack that was over 50% other nations as well as Americans, it kills me.

I have a similar rift with Schindler's List, but it isn't similar. List involves no American troops, only Germans and Jews. But this isnt about Schindler's List.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Slim_JGE
Lastly, I'm sorry you felt like you ddin't care about the plight of the soldier because it wasn't your country, but I'm sure that many did as it was an experiance that I'm sure would be hard for anyone to handle. I'm also quite sure that many non-Jews still felt awful watching Schindler's List or the Pianist without sitting back and saying, "they're not my people, why should I care?" Anything I stated regarding the film is simply my opinion and I just wanted to voice that as well. :D

Part of what makes Schindler's List work is that it makes the non-anti-semetic folk in the audience (an maybe even a few anti-semetic folk) is that these people are human and that their life was wasted an a moraly reprhasible and false notion that they wished to harm the rest of the human race. I didn't root against or even take pleasure in the demise of the US characters or even felt their lives weren't as valuable as mine. They were, and more so since they fought for a good cause (even if that wasn't their original intention they still deserve praise for helping to stop Nazis from totally taking over). When the movie tries to tell me this was the sole accomplisment of only 4% of the human rave and that we should share their pride even thought it's not related to us, that's when I draw the line.

[Raging Bull080]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Dont bring Pearl Harbor into it, because it has nothing to do with this. Just because you're forced into country doesn't mean you want to be there.

You also neglected to mention that Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, whilst D-Day was soley to force the Germans out of occupied France.

Also, the film fails to mention the thousands upon thousands of Canadian, British and French troops that also died on d-day. it's impressive, but the fact that it passes itself off as purely fact is sickening.


How does Pearl Harbor have nothing to do with the situation. It is what forced us into a war were our enemies included the Germans and the Japanese. You do know the Germans weren't our only enemies in World War II. I don't mean say our men were happy to go and risk it all for their country, but they did it and didn't bitch because they had to. I have watched this movie with a veteran of this war and he was impressed by the films realism. I don't at all see were you are coming from, but we will have to agree to disagree.

[Briare Rabbit]

Originally posted by Raging Bull080
How does Pearl Harbor have nothing to do with the situation. It is what forced us into a war were our enemies included the Germans and the Japanese. You do know the Germans weren't our only enemies in World War II. I don't mean say our men were happy to go and risk it all for their country, but they did it and didn't bitch because they had to. I have watched this movie with a veteran of this war and he was impressed by the films realism. I don't at all see were you are coming from, but we will have to agree to disagree.

Because the war in the Atlantic and the war in the Pacific aren't only a different league, they're not even the same fucking sport.

The German war was still largely a European war, even as it wrapped up. America was fighting it's war with the Japanese, because they were the ones who had the most access to them. The Germsn were bordered on all sides by Russia and Britain, and they were doing that.

Pearl Harbor and D-Day aren't even the same thing at all.

What Im coming from is that Spielberg's movie is a pile of shit, it's inaccurate (apart from battle scenes) and it's just... really bad, to put it simply.

[randy ze tool]

1. "Gladiator" over "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"
2. "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" over "Lost in Translation"
3. "The English Patient" over "Fargo"
4. "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan"
5. "The Silence of the Lambs" over "JFK"
6. "Dances With Wolves" over "GoodFellas"
7. "Midnight Cowboy" over "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"
8. "In the Heat of the Night" over "The Graduate"
9. "Forrest Gump" over "The Shawshank Redemption"
10. "Going My Way" over "Double Indemnity"

[Raging Bull080]

Originally posted by Briare Rabbit
Because the war in the Atlantic and the war in the Pacific aren't only a different league, they're not even the same fucking sport.

The German war was still largely a European war, even as it wrapped up. America was fighting it's war with the Japanese, because they were the ones who had the most access to them. The Germsn were bordered on all sides by Russia and Britain, and they were doing that.

Pearl Harbor and D-Day aren't even the same thing at all.

What Im coming from is that Spielberg's movie is a pile of shit, it's inaccurate (apart from battle scenes) and it's just... really bad, to put it simply.

You just won't let this go will you, look I am tired of discussing history with you. For the last time, we were fighting Germany, Italy, and Japan, other countries too but those were the leaders. Our mission in this war wasn't to defeat the Japanese because they attacked us, it was (along with our allies) to defeat Japan, Germany and all of the nations on their side. Our mission was to win the war, period. I imagine our soldiers were aware of what exactly they were doing in France, not only to get the Germans out but to win the war.When one of his men questioned their mission, Hank's Character replied, " Our mission is to win the war." You have you're opinion and your entitled to it, but be aware you are in a small minority. Most people who appreciate great filmaking love and respect this film. So to put it simply, this movie is an absolute MASTERPIECE . So this is the second time I will say it, let's just agree to disagree.

[Ted Pikul]

Germany actually declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor.

If Hitler hadn't done that it's very doubtful American troops would have thought in Europe.