I can agree with a lot of those and would like to add Titanic to the list. Just becuase it made 100 gazillion dollars does not mean it has to win.

Some perfect timing this topic is! I was just thinking of asking you what you thought of "Braveheart" actually Rich, so now I know.

I have seen "Terms of Endearment", "Forrest Gump", "A Beautiful Mind", "Ordinary People", and "Rocky". Films I thought were excellently made during the year they won, and can be considered as some of the best films in the last 3 decades. If these same people from Empire had also put the movie they thought should have won in the year it was released, then we're talking.

If you want to check out the other movies nominated that year, check this link:

http://www.filmsite.org/oscars.html

Here are my list:

1. "Shakespeare in Love" (1998) - I thought it should have been given to "Saving Private Ryan".
2. "Titanic" (1997) - I felt "L.A. Confidential" deserved it more, on hindsight I dont have a problem with it now.
3. "Chicago" (2002) - Was it really better than "Gangs of New York" or "The Hours"?
4. "Annie Hall" (1977) - Okay, forgive me but they really should have given it to "Star Wars" or the better made "The Goodbye Girl"
5. "Oliver!" (1968) - Though a good film, I thought "The Lion in Winter" or "Funny Girl" were better productions.

Absolutely agree on Braveheart! Piece Of S... epic that had all the subtlety of a bag of hammers falling on fine crystal...(However, was faaaar more subtle and full of depth than Mel's latest epic, The Passion)

on the 1996 Academy Awards ceremony, where Braveheart won: The Usual Suspects, Leaving Las Vegas and 12 Monkeys were not even nominated for Best picture in that year...It was a very, very weak year for best pics nominations:

Braveheart (1995)
Apollo 13 (1995)
Babe (1995)
Postino, Il (1994)
Sense and Sensibility (1995)

These are probably the same people who would select some swooning French parlor film about croissants and unrequited homo-erotic love for best picture. You'd think, based on their observations, that they'd be churning out literary gold and garnering piles of golden statues themselves. I guess they're above that.

Triflic, who do you think should have won in 1995 if not "Braveheart" out of those who were also nominated?

See this is what hindsight does for you, it removes all the hype and lays bare the movie itself.

Instead of Braveheart? Triflic does well for me here and comes up with the ones I would have thought of.

Leaving Las Vegas
Il Postino
Usual Suspects
Bridges of Madison County
Mr Holland's Opus

...all deserved to be in that nomination list. As for the winner, better than Braveheart? It's hard as that is one of the better Scottish movies for me to date (Gerard Butler in Burns is gonna rock!). Il Postino for me. Being a lover of poetry and Neruda's works. Haunting, simple and beautiful.

Titanic should have been no.1 on that list though!

I have to agree with Beautiful Mind being on the list. I walked out of that one saying "Oh, so he's just...crazy."

Damn... I LOVED Bravehart. Who says a movie is SUPOSED to be subtle?

"(Gerard Butler in Burns is gonna rock!)"

Ahhhhh Rich, you should have left that remark out, you know I will not let it pass without commenting on it! *winks* You bet it will!

Okay, I think if "Braveheart" didnt win, (altho I dont have a problem with it winning) I'd go for either "The Usual Suspects", or "Mr. Holland's Opus".

WTA "Dances with Wolves" in 1990, was it really better than "Goodfellas"?

you shouldnt have mentioned braveheart, i cant help commenting whenever i hear that name.

I hate it.

Thats all i can say without a history essay

Brave Heart is easily one of the top war movies of all time.

1. glory
2 Saving private Ryan
3. Braveheart
4 Gladiator
5 Platoon

Oooh....Saving Private Ryan, a typical American rewrite of history if ever I saw one. I'm so glad there weren't any British people in that war, we could have lost so many.

Same history rewriting as Braveheart, but both enjoyable movies.

Gladiator? Oh yeah, the Spartacus remake...that was alright.

Actually, on the subject of subtlety, I really don't think the Scottish of that age cared much for subtlety. Being a Highlander myself, I can say I don't care for it much nowadays!

Simone:

My point was...Who the hell picked those Nominees for that year. There simply is not a choice there. However, If I were to choose the Nominees they would be more like

The Usual Suspects
12 Monkeys
Leaving Las Vegas
Heat
Toy Story

With Leaving Las Vegas as the winner.

Mr. Holland's Opus is mentioned...I have a burr in my side for that film...I lump it in with this category of films which I classify as "lazy drama" Recent examples include (and I'm going to make some enemies here...sorry about that!): Good Will Hunting, Dead Poets Society and Coach Carter, and Mona Lisa Smile (I exempt "Lean on Me" from my ire because Morgan Freeman is just so DAMN GOOD an actor, he elevates the movie!!!) To Hollywood I say this: Please stop with the formulaic benevelont-but-hard-nosed teacher/mentor films, everything was said that need to be said with Good-Bye Mr. Chips.

Other questions...Hmmm, I actually believe that Dances with Wolves is a better film than Goodfellas. I also believe Million Dollar Baby is a better film than The Aviator...DAMN...and I'm a huge Scorcese fan too, so I'm not bashing the man intentionally by giving my vote to actor-directors over him.

And Forrest Gump (which I strongly disliked) was a travesty taking the Oscar from the far superior film of that year, which will be remembered way longer than Mr. Gump: FARGO...at least Ms. MacDormand won for her perfomance.

John: To your comment of 'who says a movie has to be subtle? To that I say, who enjoys a piece of music which consists of only an air-horn playing at top volume? (See also: Armageddon, Bad Boys Iⅈ, XXX, Passion of the Christ, Van Helsing, Charlies Angels I & II, Enemy of the State, Independance Day, The Patriot, etc. etc....All of those pictures have the following in common: They are loud, phoney, and are thoroughly insulting to thier audience...the worst kind of filmmaking)

/End Rant
KuRt.

Forrest Gump was nominated in 1994. Fargo was nominated in 1996 (and lost to The English Patient, which is even worse). The Shawshank Redemption should have won vs. Forrest Gump in '96 (easily).

One last thing to "why you do dat":

You must be younger than 25...None of those movies were even made before 1990. And while the look of a war film has gotten more realistic in the past 10 years or so, that doesn't mean the films have gotten any better

O where art Thou, the great films of war:

Apocalypse Now (70s)
Full Metal Jacket (80s)
Paths of Glory (50s)
All is Quiet on the Western Front (30s)
The Deer Hunter (70s)
The Battle of Algiers (60s)
Three Kings (90s)
Dr. Strangelove (60s)
The Thin Red Line (90s)
Das Boot (80s)
Patton (70s)
The Pianist (2000s)
and
The Grand Illusion (30s)

The first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan was viscerally brilliant...the rest of the film...meh...the word pap comes to mind.
Glory was good. I'll give you that.
The other three films were cinematic junk-food. Yes, even Platoon was less than spectacular and Braveheart and Gladiator were unredeemable garbage.

Hmmm, I'm feeling very opinionated tonite...I don't mean to offend, this is just where I stand..which I know full well from coming to the Movie Blog for the past 8 months or so is opposite to many of the regulars here...but I still enjoy the debate, even if I spit my drink out in surprise on some of the things I read here...

KuRt.

Wyte thank you for the correction...and I wholeheartedly absolutely agree...THE ENGLISH PATIENT is faaaaaaaar worse than Forrest Gump...Man I hate that that pretentious excuse for a film...

And I'm accused by all of my friends as the pretenious...I'll happily sit down through a back-to-back marathon of Solaris (2003) and Solyaris (1972)...I love The Thin Red Line...and love Guy Maddin Films.....But The English Patient....was like fingernails on the chalkboard when I watched it...And I should be patriotic to a film based on a Canadian book...But I can't like even a frame of that film...

GRRRR....It beat FARGO...

Agree with you on Shawshank too...But Pulp Fiction should have won for that year, just edging out Shawshank...

Hindsight is 20/20 i guess...

Triflic is killing me. Seriously, I'm sitting here holding my side from laughing. At the risk of blowing up his ego to the size of a small third world country, he is right on the money tonight! I agree with every opinion he opined here.

The English Patient was so contrived I should have left the theatre five minutes in. But, as my ride was sitting beside me and I was trapped on the other side of the city watching that garbage, I was forced to lose three hours of my life and to suffer a rotation of each ass cheek going numb back to back. Ugh! AND if that weren't bad enough, my bladder decided it needed to be drained 20 minutes in but I didn't want to leave for fear of never coming back and missing my ride home. Most horrible experience of my life... right after the 20 mintues of my life I wasted watching The Whole Nine Yards. Now, there is a flick I didn't have a problem getting up in the middle of and going home. Who cares if my boss was in the audience at the time? It was a piece of shit from start to middle, and I wasn't about to stick around till the bitter end.

I have never willingly seen a Russell Crowe movie, therefore I will defer to Kurt on this one. I think the man is, in his own venicular, a twat. Plain and simple. And I'm not that sold on Ron Howard's work either. 'Nuff said there.

As someone who works behind the scenes within the Deaf community, I have to say I was very disappointed Mr Holland's Opus was overlooked in every category the year it could have won.

As for Gump, it took two years after it came out before I would see it. And it was just okay.

I loved Shawshank Redemption. When I worked at WB, it was the very first movie I ordered through the employee's discount purchase programme.

Even though Full Metal Jacket came out in the 80s back when I was in my teens, I still recall feeling like it was a very important movie. It stacked up well to all of the war stories I heard from my mother who would tell me about her father's time in the army.

And finally, to this day, I can't understand why Heat didn't win squat. I mean, the scene in the diner between De Niro and Pachino is one of the best pieces of acting and screenwriting I have watched in a very long time. That scene alone should have gotten either of them some hardware. But, alas... *sigh* What the fuck does the Academy know, anyway? Sweet dick all if you ask me!

Ok triflic, I would have agreed with you until I saw you put three kings on there. What in the world were you thinking. I understand when you say that Braveheart and gladiator was cinematic garbage. They were a little glossy but nevertheless they were great films.

This is the reason why Roger Ebert makes money off being a movie critic and me and you dont. I saw the pianist and I thought it was an extraordianry film but and it was real real gritty. But I just dont think it had the _____(There is no word to describe it)that braveheart and gladiator did.

Everything is subjective, you hate the movies I like and I hate the movies you like.
Saving Private Ryan was no joke. you probably like movies like mission impossible two, or the matrix or something.

At least all my movies had quality. Even the good critics gave these movies high ratings. But THREE KINGS come on b. ICE CUBE? I mean it was decent, but that is like saying Billy Crystal is funnier than Chris Rock.

I seen a lot of those old movies and they just dont do it for me. The acting is not all that great, and it looks fake. but you must be over 40 or something. Hey maybe we can be best friend movie pals, and watch a lot of movies together, and I'll tell kanisha to make us some pancakes and cornbread

Richard: I dont normally like war films, but after "Saving Private Ryan", which I must confess, I have seen a dozen times in the cinema, I have seen a few other war movies like "The Thin Red Line" (wasnt this also nominated the same year?) "The Longest Day" (not one of my favorites but nonetheless a good film).

Kurt/Triflic: Thanks for the reply. I did get your point that a few films which you felt should have been nominated in 1995 didnt make it, but I was also wondering, from the ones who did make the nomination, what would you have preferred to win over "Braveheart"?

As for "Dances with Wolves", I enjoyed it back then, but I dont think I can sit through another 4 hours watching it again. I have "The English Patient" on DVD but have yet to watch it. Kurt's comment was a big encouragement I have got to say. *winks*

The Longest Day! Yes, brilliant film. The taking of the key bridge, was that the Arnheim (sp?!) Bridge, was actually helped along by a couple of fellows who acted their very parts in the movie - Richard Todd being one of them.

There are many stories of actual soldiers in that movie. Fantastic epic.

why ya'll take off my post when I tried to reply back to john's post. This is a real shady site. Please be decent citizens and put the post that I had. It wasnt even tha bad. It was written in a satirical schema.

why you do dat: Actually, I was born in 1975...But I've watched way to many films in my short 30 years. I stand by that Three Kings is an excellent film though...There is depth and thought behind the comedy and occasional farce-like moments. To each their own then...I don't understand when you say "At least My movies had quality" how that adds anything to the conversation...it just sort of states the obvious...from your point of view...

Simone: I guess my answer was "THERE IS NO CHOICE BETWEEN THOSE 5 NOMINEES" while Sense and Sensibilty and Il Postino were all right, and I've heard good things but have not seen Babe (The less said about Apollo 13 and Braveheart the better...Ron Howard and Mel Gibson being two directors I've never been particularly impressed with)...I couldn't decide between those movies because I am entirely indifferent towards them, or strongly dislike them...

Lily: Glad to entertain! Yes my ego is larger, and for that I thank you! :)

FOREST GUMP IS FAVORITE MOVIE!

Well Marla that's a shame :)
Seriously though from what I've been able to see from my time on this ball of a planet is that the movies that get nominated for best picture are NEVER the best picture from that year...ever.
Certian movies are bred to be good and others to win awards, it's like the diference between a purebred dog and a mutt; sure the purebred is pretty, but the mutt's going to be the better dog.
Oh and the greatest war movie was The Great Escape..Steve McQueen: Total Badass...

"Ireland online of all places"

Highly insulting to us dumb micks. Thanks.
Jackass...

You know, I get what John was talking about now, whatever you do you are insulting someone. Someone will infer something from one of your comments and suddenly your an something-hater!

The comment was because I never knew there was an Ireland Online and there's a surprise that it was giving leading Movie information. I'm equally surprised on the rare occasions when Scottish sites\newspapers do this. Nothing against the Irish.

Geez, can't believe you picked up on that one and not the other genuine dig!

richard
These are Films that are funded by America. however you feel about the war, that is you. But just because no one cares about Canada, doesn't mean you have to take your depressive state of mind out on the Movie. If Canada wanted to fight wars and then make a movie they could. No real American would ever want to live there because it is the most boring city ever.
I dont care about Brits being in the movie either. People like hugh grant dont belong. I'm not even one of those right wing nuts, but from now on lets just post about the movie itself and not try to politicize the movie
Whether it is from your perspective or not it is a great movie. A good movie is a good movie. A good laugh is a good joke is a good joke, now matter how distasteful it was.

so many errors in that last post

Meant to say canada is a country

Meant to say, a funny joke is a funny joke

just because no one cares about Canada, doesn't mean you have to take your depressive state of mind out on the Movie

Eh? What? Do you know who you're talking to and about what? I sure as hell don't. No depression, not Canadian or in Canada (and Canada isn't a city), and no idea what you're referring to anyway.

Perhaps you meant my comment about the American cinematic viewpoint that America one the war single handedly, were strong and decisive after Pearl Harbour, captured the code breaking machine that turned the tide on the U-Boat dominance and survived D-Day all alone.

Well regardless of who stars or even if other nationalities who fought in the war are portrayed as a major part, a minor part, or even mentioned, some credit in these movies would be good for these other nations.

That's not perspective or feeling of events, that's actual fact. American studios are rewriting the history books, especially of wars, for the big screen.

Braveheart...even for the fiction that it was it wasn't very good.

As for American films rewritting history when it comes to film..anyone that expects a history lesson while watching a movie should be slapped.

Richard

Maybe I read your post in the wrong manner, and came down to harshly on you. But A movie is a movie, there are a lot of things that America rewrites, but a movie is not the thing you should complain about. For instance, the textbooks in school America rewrites, that's what we should really be concerned about. Like cc said if you expect to learn your history by looking at a movie you should be pimped slap.
When I watch movies of history I dont use it as a history lesson. I never watched a few movies on western civilization and then took my test.

People are going to write what they write. Like I said a movie is a movie

Why does there need to be physical violence against me for my views?

I don't think that films should be historical recreations, but when they are billing themselves as historically based movies then they should at least be that.

I'm not suggesting that they make sure the boat was the same colour and number, or that the planes flew the correct flight path, what I am suggesting is that the over arching plot line be true to history for those historically based and pitched movies.

The worse thing is that Hollywood continues to present America as the power that won the war without a single credit to anyone else who fought for their country.

Fiction is fine, but a recognition of that fact should at least be made. This is not so important when you view it on the individual film, but when you look at it across the range of movies they continue to portray America in this light. That's where the damage is done.

As for schools, well this is the MovieBlog, not the SchoolBlog, and I really couldn't comment on what American schools do or don't do.

Anyway, I'm as annoyed at Braveheart for the same reasons as I am the WWII movies from America. In Hollywood though, it's a trend.

On learning from movies, whether this is intended or not, it happens. I remember a BBC programme that looked at the effects of movies on children, and it showed that although they realised that violence was all in the movie, they really did pick up on movies that were fiction based and ended up quoting historical facts from the movie and not from history. It was an interesting point that was made.

Ok complain all you want about Hollywood rewrites of history. They do it often enough. But the movie Saving Private Ryan is not about the British and French efforts on D-Day, it is about the U.S. Ranger platoon and a paratrooper in an American Airborne unit. Within those boundaries it is rediculous to complain about not mentioning other nations involved. You might as well complain about Australia, Canada, and South Africa not being mentioned in the movie Battle of Britain.

Battle of Britain does acknowledge some of the others that fought alongside Britain during the movie, and has a full acceptance and acknowledgements in the closing credits.

That's hot off the mobile from my Dad who has watched this more times than I've had hot dinners, as he would say, and if I can ever persuade him to post here (when he's back from holiday) he surely will explain more.

Would Braveheart have been panned so badly if Mel Gibson had not the audicity to make "Passion"?

I doubt it and really think some of this slamming of Braveheart is because of the success of "Passion".