Best Picture Opinions: The 90’s

A few months ago I wrote a post containing my opinions about the Best Picture races of the 2000’s, in which I re-did what I feel should’ve been the proper nominations and awards for the decade. I want to do the same for my favorite decade: The 90’s!

Some ground rules I will try to carry over from the previous post:

1. As we are pre-2009, each year will have 5 slots.
2. I will aim to include a more classic Oscars option, either a “true story” or a period drama or something about a person fighting on behalf of a disenfranchised group. Or something like that.
3. I will reserve a spot for a genre movie, so a movie that may be more specifically categorized than just a “drama”, which is what typically garner most nominations.
4. I likely haven’t seen many of the actually nominated movies, which just needs to be said in case I insult my only reader’s favorite movie, Con Air. Okay…to the nominees!

1990

Actual Nominees:

1. Dances With Wolves (winner)
2. Awakenings
3. Ghost
4. The Godfather: Part III
5. Goodfellas

Dances With Wolves won. Kevin Costner became the next “auteur”, winning Best Director and garnering a Best Actor nomination. I’m a huge Costner fan, but…I can’t like this movie. I’ve never seen it, to be fair, but I don’t think I ever will. It’s a typical Academy movie: a sprawling epic (3 hours long, vast landscapes), a period drama (Civil War era), with one man (Costner) lobbying on behalf of a disenfranchised group (the Sioux tribe of South Dakota). I’ve heard it’s good, and it very well could be, but it was very much the wrong choice.

Awakenings, ehh, never seen it, don’t hear people talking about it much. Probably carried by a Deniro performance where he has encephalitis, and the fact that it’s a “true story”.

Ghost, never saw it, seems rom-com-adjacent, but, may be a good movie. Swayze rules.

The Godfather: Part III, ugh. Per Wikipedia, Coppola looked at Part I and Part II as a two-part story, with Part III serving as an Epilogue. Be that as it may, it was naturally going to be looked at as a trilogy, and this last piece doesn’t live up to the other two, an impossible task, to be fair, but why come out with an Epilogue sixteen years after Part II? I’ve only seen it once, but the plot was all over the place, the Vatican stuff was confusing, and as everyone talks about, Sofia Coppola’s performance as Michael’s daughter was noticeably bad. No need for this.

Goodfellas, it seems crazy that this wasn’t the choice. Despite all of the awards-bait aspects of Dances With Wolves, Goodfellas was nominated, which means it should’ve been chosen. It’s almost easier to understand if it just wasn’t nominated, because then you can at least say the movie just wasn’t to the Academy’s tastes at the time (right or wrong). But if they liked Goodfellas enough to nominate it, how could it not win? The case for Goodfellas:

-It’s a phenomenal movie. The best movie at the time and the most memorable movie thirty years later. This is the objective reason to choose it.

-Since narrative always seems to matter with these things, it’s from Martin Scorsese, a clear genius, who had already given us all-time classics, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, as well as 3 other movies that had garnered at least one Oscar nomination by that point. And, for the second time, he got passed over while the Academy went ga-ga over the directorial debut of a movie star. Weak. Sauce.

-It’s about the mafia, a subject that is inherently interesting to us as many movies and TV shows have won awards for exploring this topic, perhaps none better than Goodfellas. So, it isn’t like this was a taboo subject for the Academy.

My nominees:

1. Goodfellas (winner, this isn’t hard)
2. Dances With Wolves
3. The Grifters
4. Miller’s crossing
5. Misery

Goodfellas: See above

Dances With Wolves: We can call this our “awards-bait” entry, plus, it might actually be a decent movie.

The Grifters: I haven’t seen this movie all the way through, but it was already nominated for Directing, Acting, and Adapted Screenplay. It seems like it might’ve been one of the five best movies of the year.

Miller’s Crossing: In 1990, the Coen Brothers weren’t quite the Academy darlings they would become, but they were quite good at making movies. Miller’s Crossing was their third full length feature, and you’d think after Blood Simple and Raising Arizona, the Academy would’ve been all in on their period drama about the Irish mafia during Prohibition. Alas…

Misery: This could qualify as our genre entry (thriller), but in my opinion, this movie is highly underrated in general. It’s an exercise in building tension by setting up progressive complications throughout a story. The movie mostly takes place in one location, with only two principle characters and it’s still highly engaging. They gave Kathy Bates Best Actress for her role, I’d say more of a Supporting role, but a great performance nonetheless. Throw in that it was written by two-time Oscar winner, William Goldman, adapted from a Stephen King novel, and directed by Hollywood lifer, Rob Reiner, who, in the previous four years, had directed Stand by Me, The Princess Bride, and When Harry Met Sally…. Seems like a good choice to me.

1991

Actual Nominees:

1. The Silence of the Lambs (winner, fawk yeah!)
2. Beauty and the Beast
3. Bugsy
4. JFK
5. The Prince of Tides

The Silence of the Lambs, love your suit! Forget the fact that this is one of my five favorite movies of all time, how about the fact that this movie is one of three movies ever to win the Big-5 Oscars (Picture, Directing, Actor, Actress, Screenplay), and everyone seemed to think that was the right decision at the time. And better yet, no one seems to have an issue with it thirty years later. I’d argue that Anthony Hopkins should’ve won Best Supporting Actor, rather than Best Actor, since the story is really about Clarice, with Hannibal as a supporting character, but it’s one of the most indelible performances ever put on screen. The Academy got it right.

Beauty and the Beast, definitely a classic. Wonderful music. Disney was really something back then.

Bugsy, meh. In terms of narrative, it was Oscar-favorite, Warren Beatty, playing gangster, “Bugsy” Segal, in the “true story” of how he started Las Vegas. It was directed by recent Oscar winner, Barry Levinson. There were also strong supporting performances from Annette Benning, Harvey Keitel and Ben Kingsley. It had all the makings of a nomination, even though it was a pretty forgettable movie.

JFK, Oliver Stone’s take on the JFK Assassination. He’s another Oscar-darling. It’s still a movie people talk about to some degree. It’s interesting, if nothing else.

The Prince of Tides, what? Has one person said the words ‘prince’ and ‘tides’ in the same sentence since March of 1992? No. No one has.

My nominees:

1. The Silence of the Lambs (winner)
2. Beauty and the Beast
3. JFK
4. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
5. Thelma & Louise

The Silence of the Lambs: If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Beauty and the Beast: This era of Disney movies are better than any musical I’ve ever seen. The songs are catchy and memorable. The characters are memorable. Enjoyable to watch.

JFK: We can keep it as the awards-bait pick, since it’s a “true story’ about an important historical topic. Though, obviously, no one would consider Oliver Stone a documentarian.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day: This is our genre pick, sci-fi/action, a genre the high-minded Academy normally veers away from. In this case, they gave T2 the typical action movie Oscars – Best Sound, Sound Effects, Visual Effects, and Make-up; not surprising for a ground-breaking action flick that pushed movies forward. But the movie also received nominations for Cinematography and Editing, a sign that we’re not just watching a run of the mill action flick. This is a film. Also, just on principle, this sequel came out seven years after the ground-breaking original and managed to break new ground and actually exceed the original as a story. A rare achievement that should be acknowledged.

Thelma & Louise: This omission is just surprising. First of all, it’s a very good movie, a tight story, good character development, good acting – definitely one of the five best movies of the year. But, logically speaking, T&L was nominated for Directing, Acting, Cinematography, Editing, and it won for Original Screenplay. Where exactly did it fall short as a movie? How could the whole not add up to, at least, the sum of the parts?

1992

Actual Nominees:

1. Unforgiven (winner)
2. The Crying Game
3. A Few Good Men
4. Howards End
5. Scent of a Woman

I haven’t seen Unforgiven in a long time, but I remember thinking it was badass. But, aside from bad-assery, it was a deconstructionist Western that made it difficult for the industry to keep making traditional Western’s from that point on. The acting is strong, the tone and story are great, and the Academy made a very good selection.

The Crying Game, I haven’t seen. I know the big reveal, and that is really the only reference point the movie has thirty years later. The story definitely sounds unique, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is, in fact, a good movie.

A Few Good Men is excellent. I would’ve been okay if this movie won Best Picture. Great characters, dialogue, acting and a highly engaging story. I’m not a diehard fan of courtroom drama’s, but this movie is in my top 2.

I haven’t seen Howards End, it certainly strikes me as an awards-bait period drama. I’ve never heard it referenced, and though the websites and books I read may be biased toward other movies, it just seems like an easy movie for the Academy to throw in over some other movies that belong to less-favored genres. I will say, the principle actors, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Vanessa Redgrave and Helena Bonham Carter are all very good, so I’m sure it was English period drama done to the nines.

Scent of a Woman, ehh, it’s tough. It’s a nice, feel-good movie that finally garnered Pacino his long overdue Oscar. I like it fine enough. I think it’s best-remembered today for 1) Getting Pacino his Oscar, and 2) “HOOOO AHH!” The birth of Pacino’s louder and more gravelly voice.

My Nominees:

1. Unforgiven (winner)
2. A Few Good Men
3. The Player
4. Reservoir Dogs
5. Scent of a Woman

Unforgiven: Good choice.

A Few Good Men: Also would’ve been a very good choice.

The Player: I only saw it once, it was good. One of the career-best movies from a historically great director who was nominated for directing the movie. Seems relevant.

Reservoir Dogs: Awesome movie! Probably too shocking and “crass” for the Academy, but Tarantino’s debut has a compelling story with a terrific structural design, cool characters and great dialogue. It also does the rare-ish thing of being a genre movie that doesn’t show the typical genre element, in this case, a heist movie that doesn’t show the heist, and yet remains compelling. I would’ve been happy if this movie won, but it never would’ve happened. We can have the nomination count as our genre pick, heist thriller.

Scent of a Woman: Feel-good story of redemption in a drama about a character with a physical disability. Sounds like our Oscars-bait pick to me.

1993

Actual Nominees:

1. Schindler’s List (winner)
2. The Fugitive
3. In the Name of the Father
4. The Piano
5. The Remains of the Day

Schindler’s List is a very good movie. It is a bit awards-baity, “important true story” of a person fighting for a disenfranchised group, in a different time period, made by an Academy favorite (Steven Spielberg). It is emotionally affecting, well-shot, the score is fantastic and the acting is great. I don’t know if it is as historically great as it was thought to be at the time, but it is a very good movie. I won’t argue the Academy’s choice.

The Fugitive rules! A rare nomination for an action movie. In my heart of hearts, this movie would’ve won.

In the Name of the Father, I haven’t seen, but it’s another “important true story”. The actors are all great. It’s another courtroom drama. I’m certainly open to seeing it.

The Piano, I also haven’t seen, but it sounds like an affecting drama. Jane Campion just won her Oscar last week.

The Remains of the Day reeks of Oscar bait. I haven’t seen it, but it’s another English period drama with stellar actors and costumes. Meh. They nominate one of these every year.

My Nominees:

1. Schindler’s List (winner)
2. Dazed and Confused
3. The Fugitive
4. Groundhog Day
5. Jurassic Park

Schindler’s List: A worthy victor that qualifies as our award-bait entry.

Dazed and Confused: I’m not even a diehard fan of this movie like most guys my age, though I do like it, and I think this is one of the most enduring movies from 1993. It’s a period piece about teenaged life in rural Texas in the mid-70’s. It’s like the comedic sequel to The Last Picture Show.

The Fugitive: A surprising, but totally deserved nomination from the Academy. We keep it here. It’s our genre movie nomination.

Groundhog Day: While technically a comedy, it could definitely be argued that it’s a dramedy. There’s a strong character arc for Phil Connors and it has a truly unique (for the time) story structure. I like to reward the creativity in this case. The acting is strong as well.

Jurassic Park: I’m not even a big Jurassic Park fan, but it was a groundbreaking movie, from the same auteur as Schindler’s List, with strong themes and legitimate character arcs. Even if it’s got Spielberg schmaltz, it isn’t just a dinosaur movie.

1994

Actual Nominees:

1. Forrest Gump (winner)
2. Four Weddings and a Funeral
3. Pulp Fiction
4. Quiz Show
5. The Shawshank Redemption

Forrest Gump wins, it’s heavily griped about on the internet, so I don’t want to overdo it, but it’s a bad choice. Tom Hanks is fantastic and remarkably charming. Many of the special effects were groundbreaking, and I appreciate that the Academy rewarded the movie for this considering it never did this for other deserving movies. The story just feels silly to me, a guy coincidentally crosses paths with every important historical figure over the course of a few decades? The music cues are way too on-the-nose to be taken seriously. He teaches Elvis how to dance and when he wipes his face it creates the smiley face? It stinks. Also Jenny is underwritten and should make us all feel bad about what the movie is trying to say.

Four Weddings and a Funeral, an English dramedy with Hugh Grant. It is a pretty good movie, but not really my thing. And though it’s good, I’m kind of surprised it was nominated over more typical fare like a solid Woody Allen movie (Bullets Over Broadway) or The Madness of King George (a “true story” that’s an English period drama about royalty).

Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite movies of all-time. The story, the structure, the dialogue, the characters, the music it’s just an awesome viewing experience every time. How it lost to Forrest Gump is a testament to the stereotypical, cookie-cutter thinking that bogs down the Academy.

Quiz Show, I mean, talk about forgettable. No one cares.

The Shawshank Redemption, another one of my all-time favorites. A feel-good movie with plenty of darkness along the way, great acting and characters, a great plot twist, great score. It’s always enjoyable.

My Nominees:

1. Pulp Fiction (winner)
2. Bullets Over Broadway
3. Forrest Gump
4. The Lion King
5. The Shawshank Redemption
6. [Hoop Dreams]

Pulp Fiction & The Shawshank Redemption: Pulp over Shawshank? These are two of my five favorite movies of all-time. Crazy that they’re in the same year. I went back and forth on which one should win. Ultimately, I chose Pulp because I have seen it more recently, and felt a touch more excited about it. Either movie is an excellent choice that will stand the test of time as an all-time great, and would’ve allowed those of us who care about this stuff to look back and say, ‘well, at least they got this one right.’

Bullets Over Broadway: I have only seen this movie once and it was a while ago, however, this is one of my favorite Woody Allen movies. I haven’t seen all of his movies, but for me, this is in his top 4 along with Annie Hall, Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Midnight in Paris. Given how often they nominate his movies, and this was nominated for acting and screenplay, I was surprised this didn’t get more of a nod. It definitely has some very interesting components – a mobbed up broadway play which forces a the mafia don’s terrible girlfriend into a leading role, a bodyguard who secretly is awesome at writing plays, all of the typical romantic drama in a Woody Allen movie. Add to that a stellar cast, and it seems like a viable option to me. Certainly more than Quiz Show.

Forrest Gump: We can nominate it as our awards-bait movie. It’s different than an old period drama, but the mere fact that there’s a strong leading man role and it’s charming and nostalgic as all hell. Also, to be fair, there were legitimate technical advances made in this movie, like placing Forrest in historical footage, etc. That stuff is awesome, and I have no problem acknowledging that with a nomination.

The Lion King: It’s a wonderful movie with fantastic Oscar-winning music, great voice acting and even counts as a loose adaptation of a Shakespearian play (Hamlet). Similar to Beauty and the Beast, it’s highly engaging, and I like this era of Disney movies better than any musical I’ve ever seen.

*Hoop Dreams: I don’t think they’ve ever nominated a documentary for Best Picture, and I don’t know if it’s even allowed. Somehow, Hoop Dreams wasn’t even nominated for Best Documentary feature. It’s a very good look at issues of class, race, etc. all wrapped up in a couple of high school kids trying to earn a basketball scholarship.

1995

Actual Nominees:

1. Braveheart (winner)
2. Apollo 13
3. Babe
4. Il Postino
5. Sense and Sensibility

Yikes. So, I look at 1995 like I looked at 2006 in the Best Picture 2000’s post. Just a poor group of nominations that is surprising, not only because of how badly they whiffed on these movies, but because 1995 actually had some awesome movies that were completely overlooked.

To be fair, I haven’t seen Braveheart from beginning to end. I’ve seen parts, but I haven’t had much desire to watch it all. I know it was a phenomenon at the time, but it’s not especially relevant today. I don’t know how much of that is tied to Mel Gibson’s issues around ten years ago, but people aren’t still talking about Braveheart.

Apollo 13, it’s been a while, but I remember liking it. Overall, it was solid. It’s like a lot of Ron Howard movies, a solid B+/A-; a good movie, not a great movie. Is that worth nominating with other great movies on the table? No.

Babe, uhhhh, I don’t know. Definitely a phenomenon, but no one cares about Babe now. Plus, there’s a better option for a family movie.

Il Postino, I haven’t seen it, but what can I really say? If you’re nominating a foreign movie that is likely not seen widely in this country, it better be a Parasite, or something of that ilk. I know they acknowledge foreign movies, but, right or wrong, it’s largely an American and British awards show. If the Academy is going to nominate a film with subtitles, it better be a smash. And Il Postino wasn’t that.

Sense and Sensibility I also haven’t seen. It’s definitely Oscar-bait, but its resume is impressive. Yes, it’s a British period drama adapted from a Jane Austen novel, just an obvious, typical choice the Academy would make, but to be fair, it’s directed by Ang Lee and stars Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Tom Wilkinson, Hugh Grant and Alan Rickman – absolutely loaded cast.

My Nominees:

1. Se7en (winner, seriously)
2. Casino
3. Sense and Sensibility
4. Toy Story
5. The Usual Suspects

So, let’s start with Se7en. There may not be a movie that was less likely to garner a Best Picture nomination than Se7en. It’s about a brutally violent serial killer, and has a climax that would bum anybody out. However, the Academy had recently awarded The Silence of the Lambs, they awarded murder mystery, In the Heat of the Night, so there was precedent for at least nominating a serial killer movie. They did nominate Se7en for Editing, an award usually associated with nominations in other categories.

Similar to Silence, the violence and gore are more suggested than actually shown on screen. The screenplay should’ve been nominated; it’s a totally unique story in a genre where everything’s been done. The acting and characters are strong, especially Morgan Freeman. Fincher does a fantastic job of creating mood and tension, it’s an excellent movie. On top of that, it’s actually an optimistic movie. No one would walk out of a movie theater thinking that, but it’s a story about a man learning to care again. It’s a favorite of mine, and I think it’s as good, if not better, than most movies that have been nominated and won.

Casino, it’s a slightly less good version of Goodfellas. Based on a “true story”. Scorsese-Deniro-Pesci tell another story about the mafia. It’s different from Goodfellas in good ways and bad. But it is very good, even if not as good.

I wanted to nominate Heat here, but I think it’s a touch over the top. Instead, I’m going with our Oscar-bait nominee, Sense and Sensibility. As noted before, stellar cast and director, so even if it’s something I have no interest in ever seeing, it’s probably as good as Oscar-bait gets.

The thing about Toy Story is that the Academy gave them a Special Achievement Oscar “for the development and inspired application of techniques that have made possible the first feature-length computer-animated film”. It’s a movie that pushed movies forward. They nominated the movie for Score and Song, which aligns with other animated movies, but Toy Story became the first animated movie to be nominated for Original Screenplay. Clearly, this wasn’t just a movie that was only celebrated for being the first of its kind. It was really great! They’re still making sequels twenty years later. It was hugely popular with kids and adults alike. The Academy should’ve gone all the way with a Best Picture nomination.

The Usual Suspects was a contender for winning Best Picture at my Oscars, but the movie isn’t as thematically rich as Se7en. However, it’s also a great movie. It won Oscars for Original Screenplay and Supporting Actor (Kevin Spacey). It was acknowledged, but deserved more as it has been far more enduring than each of the five nominees. It’s like Citizen Kane, but with one unreliable narrator. The screenplay is fantastic with great dialogue and a unique story; the acting is solid; it has a moody, if understated score; and an all-time great twist. It is a great movie.

1996

Actual Nominations:

1. The English Patient (winner)
2. Fargo
3. Jerry Maguire
4. Secrets & Lies
5. Shine

The English Patient was a thing, I mean, they made a Seinfeld episode about it. The key word there is ‘was’. No one cares now.

Fargo was the first Coen Brothers’ movie to garner overdue Oscar credibility. It’s one of their best, combining dark comedy, criminal plots, incompetent characters, violence and morality. It seems like the critics were finally in on the jokes. The blizzard-y Minnesota/North Dakota setting is also it’s own character. Really a great movie that would’ve been my pick for Best Picture.

Jerry Maguire was definitely a phenomenon. There were quotable lines and it would’ve been “meme-able” if memes were a thing. The acting is good. It is heartwarming and endearing. It isn’t a favorite of mine, but I do like it.

Secrets & Lies, I haven’t seen. May have been good. It hasn’t endured.

I haven’t seen Shine either. It feels like a nomination for the lead performance which also won an Oscar. Similarly, it hasn’t endured.

My Nominations:

1. Fargo (winner)
2. Hard Eight
3. Jerry Maguire
4. Scream
5. When We Were Kings

It’s kind of a weak year. Fargo is more than deserving.

I haven’t seen Hard Eight, but it’s Paul Thomas Anderson’s debut feature. There’s a great ensemble cast including John C. Reilly, Philip Baker Hall and Philip Seymour Hoffman. The characters are well-written, from what I understand. I wouldn’t call this a weak movie, but obviously since I haven’t seen it, I probably wouldn’t normally nominate it unless it was a weak year.

Jerry Maguire, normally maybe not, but it’s a poor year. I haven’t seen it in a while, but I remember enjoying the sappy rom-com.

Scream would never be nominated, but it’s an awesome movie. It basically revived horror movies, a genre reviled by the Academy, but Scream is quality. It has a good, if dated, premise, and the opening scene is perfect. It’s also the one movie I’ve seen that truly scared me, so it is emotionally affecting. That’s good enough this year.

When We Were Kings, winner of Best Documentary Feature, is actually one of the best movies period this year. It may not be allowed, but it could’ve been nominated.

1997

Actual Nominations:

1. Titanic (winner)
2. As Good As It Gets
3. The Full Monty
4. Good Will Hunting
5. L.A. Confidential

Ehhhh…Titanic. Technologically ground-breaking work by James Cameron, but it’s a long, slow romance that takes a while to get to the thrilling, ground-breaking work at the end. Who wants to watch a 3-hour rom-com? Well, a lot of people did, but if not for the disaster movie over the last 45 minutes, the movie is very ordinary.

As Good As It Gets is also a rom-com. The acting is very good, it’s enjoyable Nicholson and Hunt. But, I just don’t think it’s a great movie. It’s pretty good. Not great. I think it’s telling that James L. Brooks, a previous Oscar winner for writing-directing-producing, was not nominated for Director.

The Full Monty, similar to Four Weddings and a Funeral, is a solid British movie that made its way in. The concept is certainly interesting. Definitely not enduring. Frankly, people don’t even still use the term ‘full monty’.

Good Will Hunting was, and still is, great. It’s an interesting story that is well-crafted, with great acting and a good score. Definitely a lovable movie.

L.A. Confidential is also great. Technically it’s a period piece, but an awesome throwback noir movie updated with color and modern camera tricks. It’s a windy thriller with a great ensemble cast and a well-deserved Oscar for Adapted Screenplay, as the book delves much deeper into many of the topics.

My nominations:

1. L.A. Confidential (winner)
2. Boogie Nights
3. Good Will Hunting
4. My Best Friend’s Wedding
5. Titanic

Tough not to nominate Con Air or Face/Off, but alas. L.A. Confidential is a look at police corruption, or any corruption, really, with great acting and period stylings. It is my favorite of these movies, and I believe it to be the best.

Boogie Nights is a great movie. I’m guessing the subject of pornography was the issue, but a great rise-fall-rise story about a group of broken people looking for a family. As always with PTA, great ensemble cast and excellent music choices.

Good Will Hunting is also great.

Since the Academy was apparently into rom-com’s this year, why not My Best Friends Wedding? Well-written, good structure, a movie star performance from Julia Roberts and, I’m a sucker for this, but a unique vision/take on the genre.

I guess Titanic can be nominated. They’re lucky I haven’t seen Jackie Brown.

1998

Actual Nominations:

1. Shakespeare in Love (winner)
2. Elizabeth
3. Life is Beautiful
4. Saving Private Ryan
5. The Thin Red Line

This year’s Best Picture result is one of the most griped about decisions in Oscar history: Shakespeare in Love winning over Saving Private Ryan. I vaguely remember watching Shakespeare in Love in eighth grade social studies. I don’t remember much about it. Judgmentally, it’s an old English period piece with Shakespearian performances (and costumes), and a stellar, largely British cast. It’s the type of thing the Academy eats up. Unfortunately, it hasn’t had much relevance since then.

To the other half of that “controversial” decision, Saving Private Ryan. I’ve written about this before, but there’s a legendary William Goldman review that came out leading up to the Oscars, and some people believe it cost SPR the Oscar. Once you read Goldman’s criticisms, they’re hard to forget. Namely, the forced twist that the old man in the cemetery is Matt Damon and not Tom Hanks because Hanks died; even though the movie unfolds as the old man in the cemetery remembering D-Day with Hanks and his platoon, and searching for Private Ryan, neither of which make sense if that old man is Private Ryan, because Private Ryan was not with Hanks & Co. at that time. It’s just a “gotcha” moment. Frankly, everything in the cemetery, both in the beginning and at the end, is typical Spielberg schmaltz. Everything that occurs in the past, during WWII, is typical Spielberg brilliance. So, the movie is mostly great, but has a hard to ignore plot hole, and an unnecessarily manipulative Prologue/Epilogue. It’s a waste of my favorite Tom Hanks performance, a very interesting premise, and a remarkably shot war movie. Lose all of cemetery scenes and it’s probably one of the five greatest American movies ever made. I don’t feel bad that it lost.

I’ve never seen Elizabeth, but this article from the Washington Post thinks it should’ve been the pick in ’98. It’s not too dissimilar from Shakespeare in Love in that it’s an old British period drama, but add in that it’s “true” and therefore “important”. Led by an apparently fantastic Cate Blanchett performance; I don’t say that sarcastically, she’s a terrific actress, I just haven’t seen it to say whether or not I agree. Either way, typical Oscar fare, that may actually be good.

Life is Beautiful, I also haven’t seen, but have heard it’s quite good. It’s tough to feel good about Benigni winning the Oscar over Hanks and Edward Norton, but it was an affecting movie at the time. Holocaust movies, they love that. Also, Benigni co-wrote and directed the movie, they really love that.

The Thin Red Line was Terrence Malick’s version of WWII. More of an art film, less focus on any one of the soldiers. Less spectacle than Saving Private Ryan. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but definitely an interesting contrast to Saving Private Ryan. Some will say it saturated the WWII market and hurt SPR’s chances.

My nominations:

1. The Big Lebowski (winner…my opinion, man)
2. American History X
3. Baseketball
4. He Got Game
5. Saving Private Ryan

The Coen Brothers were coming off of Fargo and had the Academy’s attention…only to flop with an aimless stoner comedy that ends with no real resolution. Fast forward a couple of years and it’s a cult classic. All of a sudden, Lebowski’s not an aimless stoner movie, but an endlessly quotable satire of L.A. noir movies that is considered by some to be a reinterpretation of Albert Camus. Add in Oscar-worthy performances from Jeff Bridges and John Goodman, an awesome slew of supporting characters and an awesome screenplay, it’s the best movie of the year.

American History X has some dated 90’s elements, but the flashback structure references Citizen Kane, while showing a more nuanced story (more nuanced than Crash, anyway) of how racism can come about and why it can be so hard to overcome. Edward Norton turns in an absolute tour de force, one of the best performances I’ve ever seen, and scarily portrays how cult leaders and extremists gain followings.

Baseketball is a fantastic satire of professional sports made by the clown princes of satire, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. It is insanely funny and legitimately smart. It absolutely belongs on this list.

He Got Game, one of the best movies from a distinguished, if under-awarded director, Spike Lee. It tells the story about high school athletes and the pressures they face when trying to determine which college to play basketball program team to play for, arguably the biggest decision of their lives. Ray Allen not being an actor shouldn’t hold back an awesome Denzel performance and a lesser known aspect of sports culture.

Look, I’m not going to not nominate Saving Private Ryan. The fact is that so long as they’re not in the cemetery, it’s an intensely riveting movie. The filmmaking is so good that it overcomes the bullshit twist and cornball aspects that plague most Spielberg efforts. Hanks doesn’t hurt either.

1999

So hard to determine a winner in one of the best movie years ever. Although there may not be an absolute juggernaut, ’99 goes deep.

Actual nominations:

1. American Beauty (winner)
2. The Cider House Rules
3. The Green Mile
4. The Insider
5. The Sixth Sense

American Beauty…definitely a bit polarizing. Some do not like the choice; some love it. The movie does a wonderful job with the characters, creating a purposeful, interconnected group, whose meaningful contrasts highlight the movies themes. The acting is very strong. There is some corny shit though.

The Cider House Rules, never saw it. Never will see it. Seems heartwarming, but no one cares now. Kind of a silly pick given all the movies available this year.

I remember liking The Green Mile, but it is long, and slow and fantastical. Hanks is good as always, Michael Clark Duncan is good as well, but overall, the movie is kind of ‘meh’.

Never saw The Insider. It is a Michael Mann movie, and he’s a really strong director. But it’s not a movie that’s referenced much these days, even within his own filmography, and this is his only Best Director nom. Doesn’t seem right.

The Sixth Sense was a real phenomenon. It’s still an enjoyable viewing. Awesome that a horror-thriller was nominated, that’s a rarity. The twist was a huge deal at the time and though some people point out “plot holes”, I still think it’s well-executed.

My nominations:

1. The Matrix (winner, tight race)
2. Being John Malkovich
3. Eyes Wide Shut
4. Fight Club
5. The Sixth Sense

We’re leaving American Beauty, 10 Things I Hate About You, Election, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, and The Talented Mr. Ripley on the bench! I don’t know if the peak movie defeats movies from every other year, but this is the deepest year of the decade.

The Matrix wins. It’s the most memorable of all of the movies, a sci-fi action movie with ground-breaking effects and something to say. It was a phenomenon at the time and it still holds up. The movie actually won Oscars for Visual Effects, Editing (an award highly correlated with Best Picture), and both Sound awards. On top of that it’s philosophically rich.

I haven’t seen Being John Malkovich in a while, but it’s so inventive; movies like that stick with you. A Spike Jonze-Charlie Kaufman pairing promises to be legitimately outside the box and edgy.

Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick’s last movie. If he had won posthumously, we’d probably be saying it’s a career achievement, or “they owed” him, and gave it to him for a movie that wasn’t in his top five, but I enjoy this movie quite a bit. It’s a total mind-fuck. There’s plenty of subtext with the real-life married couple (at the time), Cruise and Kidman, but it’s mostly just enjoyable as this dream-like movie full of crazy stuff, suggesting there’s an illuminati out there controlling everything. It may not be Kubrick’s pinnacle, but I think it’s one of the best of the year.

Fight Club is a resonant satire of masculinity and capitalism with enjoyable performances and awesome direction from David Fincher. It’s full of fun facts, has a great twist and a lot of interesting shots. Plus, Norton and Pitt, I mean, come on, awesome to watch.