Comments on: How Many Best Picture Winners Have YOU Seen?

By: Fredo

Fredo — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:36:09 +0000

As of last night (01/24/2010) at 2am in the morning, I have seen them all. I began my plight in 1993 and finished by watching The Great Ziegfeld and Slumdog Millionaire this last week. I find it funny that Slumdog Millionaire was the last one that I saw but I knew it would be easy to rent and I never caught it in theaters.

By: Fredo

Fredo — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:36:09 +0000

By: Vic Holtreman

Vic Holtreman — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:02:53 +0000

@Don

Dude, do you have a job? That’s not a slam – serious question. 1,000 movies a year is around 6 hours a day, every day of movie watching.

Vic

By: Ken J

Ken J — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:36:32 +0000

Ehem, I work 60+ hours every week as well as a few side projects. I’ll be lucky to make it to the theater once in two months… I’m jealous that you get to see so many films.

By: Don Marshall

Don Marshall — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:22:43 +0000

I’m sorry, folks—but I have made it a point to see EVERY ONE of the 81 Oscar Winners–and, trust me, I’m not kidding. I have been an avid movie-goer since I was 6 years old in my little town of Panguitch, Utah. My Mom and my pharmacist Dad ran the town drugstore, and they’d give me 14 cents and send me down to the Gem Theater, a half-block away, to see every change of film (5 different films every week during the 30’s and 40’s), just to keep me out their hair. I’ve never missed a Best Picture Oscar Winner from 1940 to today, and, I had managed to see all of the earlier ones by the time I was a college boy. To this day, I see more films than anyone else I know. Can anyone else top 1,000 films a year?–most of which are foreign, and which I see at film festivals like Cannes, Venice, Toronto, Montreal, San Sebastian, Moscow, Karlovy Vary, Edinburgh, Hong Kong, etc., etc. I’m currently finishing a book of interviews with 80 of the world’s greatest art-film directors (only two of which are American by the way). Avid film-buff that I am, I assumed EVERYONE would at least make sure they saw all the Oscar winners. I also managed to see all the others they competed with–and am surprised that everyone else wouldn’t want to do the same!

By: Ken J

Ken J — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:53:18 +0000

@ Daniel, that’s kind of what I didn’t like about Heat, too many characters, too many backstories, too long, but I still thought it was good. But I guess 11 is kind of pushing it. Haven’t seen Crash so can’t really make any statement about it one way or another. But that’s just kind of what that argument reminded me of. I just remember thinking while watching it is how rushed some of the smaller characters’ backstories seemed.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:03:26 +0000

Crash had like 11 different characters with different stories and they were all somehow related and it was weird. Brokeback is far better acted, directed and written (and the score if the means a lot). Those are the three major parts of a movie. Brokeback should have easily won as the best film of the year as it did in the Globes. Oh and Silence of the Lambs is far from the best on the list. Godfather is probably best on the list.

By: Andy S

Andy S — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:52:59 +0000

I’ve only seen 13 of them, and I thought ALOT of the ones on there that won are movies I wouldn’t watch if you paid me. I know what I like and what I like is VERY different from what the “Academy” likes. IMO, the best movie on that entire list is “Silence of the Lambs.” I am VERY surprised that a Sci-Fi fantasy movie like ROTK won considering how snobby and elitist the Academy is. Most of the movies on that list would have me sound asleep within 15 minutes…which is EXACTLY what happened during Chariots of Fire.

By: Maryclaire

Maryclaire — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:21:29 +0000

Even Jack Nicholson was surprised when Crash won. I agree with Daniel, Brokeback is a better film.

By: Daniel F

Daniel F — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:59:45 +0000

Brokeback shouldn’t have won an Oscar for anything. The fact that it did shows what the oscars are all about. Pushing whatever the agenda of the current times is. I don’t see how any one could think Crash is hard to follow. It was pretty simplistic and uncomplicated. I thought it was an amazing movie. I could buy an it’s boring argument some people can’t stand that kind of thing, but hard to follow ?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:10:16 +0000

They got it right with the Departed. Marty got a very long overdue Oscar for best director and one of his movies finnally won best picture (Raging Bull and Goodfellas should have won and I think the Aviator should have too). However crash was hard to follow and overall not a best picture movie. Brokeback should have won that year. The most deserving movie is probably Casablanca or the Godfather.

By: Daniel F

Daniel F — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:10:18 +0000

How can someone say that Crash or The Departed were not good or did not deserve to win. I feel more often than not the best movies of the year do not win, but The Departed and Crash were times that I thought they more or less got it right.

By: ShaKha

ShaKha — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 06:10:47 +0000

64 out of 81. I have a plan to see all of them, although there are a few of them that are just horrible (the Great Ziegfeld comes to mind), but at the same time some of them are brilliant films that people wouldn’t see otherwise. Also, 1956 wasn’t the King and I, it was Around the World in Eighty Days.

By: Jonathan Rowson

Jonathan Rowson — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:55:31 +0000

Everyone posting on what should have won and what did win in the past (esp the Golden Age of Hollywood) seems to forget that the climate of the world was VERY DIFFERENT, and viewer tastes as well. That included viewers of the Academy who were voting on these awards. Our tastes as viewers are dramatically different, as are our feelings on what should have won awards. I agree with a great many of you, but that is the beauty of movies on DVD is that you can enjoy YOUR CHOICE for ‘Best Whatever’ and form your own opinions on what should have won, provided your fave is available on DVD (or even VHS)

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:45:02 +0000

Yeah I’d still like to have it though. I have every one but Cavalcade. I might be able to get it in all regions but it’ll have that japanese or chinese writing on it. Singin’ in the Rain would be my next choice for best non nominated especially in a year when it should have won. The Greatest show on Earth was nothing special. Gigi in 1958 wasn’t either. Vertigo is miles ahead of that movie. Crash may have been the worst choice though. That movie was terrible. Brokeback Mountain should have won. I also didn’t like Annie Hall. Star Wars should have won.

By: Maryclaire

Maryclaire — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:26:55 +0000

If you get Fox Movie Network one ion a while they’ll show Cavalcade. It’s an awful movie, though. 1933 was such a golden year for Hollywood movies (King Kong, 42nd Street, Dinner at Eight) and Cavalcade wins. Yuck.

The best non-nominated movie ever, in my opinion is 1952’s Singin’ in the Rain

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:15:42 +0000

I’ve seen 79 of the 81. I just haven’t seen Cavalcade or Slumdog. Cavalcade isn’t even on Region 1 or I’d have it because I have every single one on dvd except cavalcade or Slumdog. When Slumdog comes out I will get it. So many didn’t win or get nominated in the Golden Age that were great movies and that is a shame. I’d say the hardest year to pick for me would be between Chinatown and the Godfather in 1974. Both great movies and I personally can’t even choose. Best movie to never but get nominated is easily Citizen Kane back in 1941. Best movie to never got nominated that should have won is Vertigo back in 1958.

By: Paula Gray

Paula Gray — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 14:48:07 +0000

I saw 65 out of the eighty one. I have not seen the last five and do not intend to.I avoided seeing them.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 07:14:11 +0000

I’ve seen 37 out of 81. But “The King and I did not win the Best Picture award in 1956. Around the World in Eighty Days won. Mostly every recent Best Picture winner was the wrong choice and it’s a shame that the Academy doesn’t know what it’s doing. Anyone that knows what true filmmaking is would know that Milk was the obvious ‘Best Picture’ of 2008. Slumdog was good, but not Best Picture caliber.

By: greenknight333

greenknight333 — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:18:05 +0000

I guess history is the real judge of these movies as some of the losers are thought of as the better films by the generations that followed..