(UPDATED)Worst "best picture" winner of the decade - After 2005

[Mister Tee]

BJ, I like your point, and it matches what I felt at the moment Shakspeare's win was announced: I simply couldn't believe such an on-the-nose Oscar favorite had failed to pick up the prize (where far lesser such films -- Braveheart, Dances with Wolves -- had waltzed home). I think two factors, in addition to what's already been mentioned, were in play. Ryan had been the favorite from August on -- a long time (as Apollo 13 had also found) to hold onto a front-runner's position. Second, though the film had been fairly widely praised, it was nowhere seen as the equal of Schindler's List, which had won for Spielberg just a few years earlier. I think some voters took a "too much too soon" view (as they similarly had for Oliver Stone in '89, after his '86 double win).

Saving Private Ryan was, I thought, over-praised by critics at the time, but I now think it's being under-rated by some in response. There was plenty of strong stuff in the film beyond the famous opening: the black-comic scene of sorting through the pile of dogtags; the pilot whose plane had crashed from excess weight (you could hear in his voice that he'd never forget the horror). I"d argue that, for about an hour and a half, it was a great movie, and would have clearly deserved the best picture prize had it continued at that pace. But then aklong came the Disney-tune-singing sniper, who just about wrecked the movie, both by characterization and crucial/corny plot role; the predictable Ryan-doesn't-want-to-go-back development (hey, I've seen The Searchers, too!); a second log, numbing battle (which only undercut the singularity of the opening one); and, finally, the creepy "I hope I've led a good life" sentimentality from grown-up Ryan (had he really felt that guilty that long, the guy would have become an alcoholic or something -- not the Norman Rockwell American Spielberg presents). These were serious enough problems that the film's loss was perfectly justifiable, for me.

Shakespeare in Love was not as ambitious an effort, clearly. But on its own terms --as romance, historic examination, and just simple pleasure -- I thought it succeeded utterly. We always gripe about how comedies aren't given their due by the Oscars. Here's a shining exception -- and people are still moaning about it.

Incidentally, given the intensity of the argument between these two films, I've always been struck by how many people's comment on the race seem to end "Actually, MY favorite of the year was (Something else)". Add me to the list: I thought Jordan's The Butcher Boy was the best film I saw that year, with Happiness a strong second.

[Sonic Youth]

To spell it out, Shakespeare in Love is to mainstream audiences what Crash is to the bourgeoisie self-proclaimed internet critics: a lesser film that toppled a sentimental favorite.

Shakespeare in Love made $100 mill at the box office. It's not like it flew over mainstream audiences heads.

You do know what "straw man" means, yes?

[rudeboy]

To this day, the techniques used in Ryan have become etched into the mainstream as far as the standard for how present war films are made.

I disagree, and agree with Original BJ's assessment of the Shakespeare over Ryan victory. Spielberg's film is little more than twenty minutes of explosions and gore and unoriginal visual flourishes, with two hours of pretty tedious and derivative, by-the-numbers, boy's own storytelling in the middle. I never, ever got the love for this movie - I know many people who hailed it as an instant classic and still hold it up as one of the great war movies. Why? What exactly did Spielberg do that hasn't been done a thousand times before, only more expensively and more geared towards causing a great big headache in the viewer?

The Thin Red Line is a deeply flawed film - I'm kindof a fan, but with strong reservations. I find the Jim Caviezel sections absolutely riveting, and the imagery intoxicating throughout, while finding the rest of the film suffers from a lack of focus and, frankly, a number of very boring passages. But it still would have made a stronger best picture choice than the crash-bang-wallop of Ryan.

Shakespeare charmed me. I wouldn't have picked it as my best pic of the year - I would't have nominated it, for that matter - and it suffers by the casting of the unbearable Geoffrey Rush, and by the inclusion of way too many downright stoopid supporting characters. But it's clever and entertaining and well acted by the leads and very funny, and with the Academy clearly unwilling to aknowledge the superiority of Rushmore, Happiness, Pleasantville, Central Station and Gods & Monsters, it was by some distance the best of a poor bunch.

[The Original BJ]

Hollywood Z, I disagree with a lot of what you say, but still think you make a great point.

I feel that Shakespeare in Love's victory over Saving Private Ryan was one of the smartest Oscar choices in recent years. (And the fact that The Thin Red Line, also superior to Ryan, was even nominated is pretty spectacular too.)

However, another part of me feels so bad for Steven Spielberg. Saving Private Ryan is EXACTLY the kind of film that always wins Oscars: big, epic filmmaking tackingly serious subjects in a populist manner, a mite simplistic and overly-sentimental, but powerful nonetheless. Shakespeare in Love is much more innovative and original, but I still sort of feel that the Oscar was supposed to be Ryan's, and why wasn't it? It's similar to what I felt last year: I thought Million Dollar Baby was much better than The Aviator, but if handsomely mounted, overlong biographies can win for every other director, how come it can't for Scorsese?

Perhaps the way I feel about Shakespeare in Love is the way a lot of Crash fans feel about that film now: I almost wish Ryan had won just so I wouldn't have to endure the endless attacks from people who can now only see Shakespeare as THE FILM THAT BEAT RYAN.

And count me in the camp that loves The Truman Show and Pleasantville. Add to that list Dark City and you've got three of the most original and provocative fantasies ignored for bland historical biographies like Elizabeth. But that's Oscar for ya.

[Hollywood Z]

As long as we're on the subject of movies coming out of nowhere to topple a giant, I'm still feeling the sting of Shakespeare in Love's win over Saving Private Ryan. To this day, the techniques used in Ryan have become etched into the mainstream as far as the standard for how present war films are made. And when looked at closer, what seems like a simple made-up war story becomes a commentary on war itself. If we risk the lives of eight men to save one, isn't that as crazy as sending young boys over sea to fight any way? Very powerful movie that shattered the mainstream. Shakespeare in Love was just fluff by comparison, a clever, eye-winking, tounge in cheek costume flick that Harvey Weinstein packaged up to be an award movie. To spell it out, Shakespeare in Love is to mainstream audiences what Crash is to the bourgeoisie self-proclaimed internet critics: a lesser film that toppled a sentimental favorite.

Don't even get me started on The Thin Red Line because I can't stand Malick's style of filmmaking: pretentious, drawn-out, out of place storytelling by a self serving psuedo-artist. (Damn, there I went.) If you want to talk about omissions, how about the disgusting overlooking of The Truman Show or Pleasantville, both are miraculous social commentaries that were sorely overlooked because they had fantasy aspects in them. To me, I just ignore the fact that there were any awards in 1998, but I still managed to remain hooked this long on the Oscars, despite the sting it left me with that year. Just remember, they're opinions and only history can prove them wrong. Besides, I was ecstatic the very next year because another personal fave of mine won Best Picture.

[Nik]

I agree completely with Original BJ. Crash's victory is more ludicrous because of its lack of precusor love and the seemingly obvious homophobic reaction to Brokeback. BUT in all fairness Gladiator is far worse. It remains - to use Damien's appellation - "dull and artless." I'd say Gladiator, Braveheart and Marty are all worse winners than Crash.

[The Original BJ]

Now that the Crash victory has died down (a little), I made my vote and picked Gladiator.

Crash is trash, but at least it did ATTEMPT to deal with an important issue, however superficial and problematic its execution.

A Beautiful Mind is a snooze, but I still think there's some fine acting in that picture that elevates it from being merely another Ron Howard bore (Plus, the nearly unbearable, and unfathomably well-reviewed Cinderella Man makes Mind look much better by comparison, IMO.)

But as dull as both those films are, Gladiator is just pointless. Admittedly, it's a handsome production, but I am still absolutely baffled that such a weightless summer popcorn flick could have duped so many people into naming it the year's best. I mean, did the voters give their ballots to their kids or what?

Still, Crash's victory has the most sting, mainly because Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind had done pretty well in the precursors, whereas Crash came out of nowhere to topple a behemoth in a vote that was just cruel more than anything else.

I haven't seen American Beauty in a few years, but I have no idea how anyone could rank that film worse than any of the above three.

[criddic3]

Crash is a fine film, with some powerful performances in it. I wouldn't necessarily choose it as the top choice of 2005, though. It raises important issues and deals with many different characters with suspense and depth. It's not a perfect movie, but it is better than a lot of other movies out there.

A Beautiful Mind is, dramatically speaking, a superb entertainment. Russell Crowe gave a remarkable performance and should have won best actor that year. I chose A. I. as the best picture, as it was a challenging and moving science-fiction drama. However, I was happy to see Ron Howard get some respect for a change. He is a good director with a solid track record of enjoyable, sometimes great, films.

American Beauty seemed new and exciting when it was released in 1999. Again, I chose a different movie (The Sixth Sense) as my favorite, but Sam Mendes' directing debut was impressive at the time. I have to see it again to see if I'd respond well all these years later.

Gladiator was a return to epic film making in a way that current audiences weren't used to. It was adventure and action, but also thoughtful in terms of Crowe's character. Thanks to Russell Crowe, the movie had some of the quality and feel of a classic costume epic. I didn't choose it as my best pic, going for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but I wasn't at all perplexed by the inclusion in the Oscar race.

Still, I have to go with Gladiator as the least worthy of the actual prize.

[Bog]

it's a tough call, and my jerk reaction was to vote for A Beautiful Mind and did, but much much more offensive was Ron Howard's victory over Altman (and Lynch for that matter), so maybe that's what makes Gladiator a tick more acceptable?

[The Original BJ]

I'm going to abstain until a little after the Crash nightmare. I'm tempted to pick it, but I can't tell if it's really much worse than Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind, or if I just hate it more at the moment. All three are pretty lousy choices, though.

[Damien]

American Beauty, over the nearly-as-dreadful Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind.

[Penelope]

American Beauty, A Beautiful Mind and Million Dollar Baby are all terrible choices; but Crash is a thoroughly insulting choice.

[dws1982]

Still American Beauty.

[VanHelsing]

Shakespeare In Love

[rudeboy]

Nothing's changed - its still A Beautiful Mind.