I completely disagree on The Hours. I also think that saying it "fooled a few easily-impressed critics" is quite a radical simplification, seeing as it scored 80% overall on RottenTomatoes. After winning the NBR for Best Film (a certified guarantee for a Best Picture nomination nowadays), Best Picture Drama at the Golden Globes, a SAG nomination for Best Ensemble and a DGA nomination, among other awards, I think The Hours was far from a "WTF" bewildering moment, and a lot of people felt it was quite deserved. It was one of my favorite films of 2002.

All looks good from here. Nice work, funny too. Dr. Dolittle in 68? wtf?

I completely agree with Garrett above – The Hours made a huge impression on me when I saw it, and I still consider it a brilliant film. As far as I remember, it was always considered a contender for the Best Picture race.

Disagree as well on "The Hours", there must be something personal for the author of this article. Either he hates one of the leading actresses, or whatever.
It is a brilliant movie, and its not forgotten. Amazing actresses – Julianna Moore, Meryl Streep, and yes Nicole.

Imdb: 7.6 thats more than decent rating.

The Hours. wtf? That is a great film. I haven't forgot about it. It is a great story that was beautifully comunicated on the screen and was filled with great acting, including the amazing performance by Nicole Kidman.

However, saying that I do love Adaptation.

And Wild At Heart. Sure Ghost isn't a great achievement in art but Wild At Heart is not a very good film.

I liked Chocolat.
But I don't remember why… =P

The Hours!? Are you kidding me. It's one of the best pictures of the decade and by saying that no one cares about it is far from true. Maybe the fact that the movie isn't a crowd pleaser results in its lesser popularity, but it is A CLASSIC!!! for those you enjoy real movies

Needless to add "The Hours" had one of the best scores ever, well pretty much every aspect of the movie – brilliant.

Shakespeare in Love was a good film – I wouldn't have given it the Oscar, but it definitely deserved a nom.

You forgot to include "Crash", which actually won! Ask anyone if they saw it and I guarantee they'll think you're talking about the far more memorable one in which James Spader got his kicks from auto accidents. I also wonder whether "Scent of a Woman" and "Prince of Tides" were also worthy, while I hated The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Had I never read the book or heard of Peter Jackson they would have been OK, but it's the crushing disappointment of the man behind "Bad Taste", "Braindead" and "Heavenly Creatures" stripping every ounce of humour, charm, heart and soul out of one of the best loved stories ever written that really galls…

I absolutely agree with every single film and suggest replacement on this list. Spot on.

I'm one of those movie geeks that still hasn't gotten over the Shakespeare In Love year, and not just the fact that it won over Saving Private Ryan, but I also wanted The Truman Show to be nominated for Best Picture that year as well. But yeah, needless to say, I've hated Harvey Weinstein for years; buying undeserving Oscars and Nominations, and butchering Asian Cinema.

I had no idea that Airport and Towering Inferno were even nominated, that is pretty sad.

And yeah, no one cares about The Hours anymore.

"Nominating Doctor Dolittle for Best Picture is like electing Simple Jack from Tropic Thunder, only that Doctor Dolittle is more retarded."

Quote of the day. That was gold lol

this list would have been agreeable except for one idiotic inclusion—The Hours. It's a beautiful film, timeless in its theme and with impeccable narrative and the great performances of its whole cast within its 3 time frames. The Hours did not just deserve its nomination, it deserved to win over the featherlight "Chicago".

But The Hours is a woman's movie, and how do we expect David Frank to appreciate it? Besides, I don't think he likes anything with Meryl Streep in it…

I disagree with star wars on that list, it was an achievement in film making and changed the landscape of films forever. but I think certain films like ghost, towering inferno and the full monty were nominated cause they were popular films at the time but haven't aged well

For me, your list is missing the most egregious Best Picture nominee of the last two decades or so. "The Cider House Rules" was a film that few, even fewer liked, and was barely present in the precursor awards that year. I remember being absolutely stunned when its name was called on nomination morning. A true "WTF" nominee if there ever was one.

Well Crash should be on this list just because it was a so-so film when I saw it compared to Brokeback Mountain. I did like Shakespeare but I like Saving Private Ryan better. Also, Chicago was way better than The Hours. Chicago still has me singing the songs from time to time.

I disagree on The Hours and Shakespeare in Love (especially the latter, which I thought was great), but everything else makes sense.

The most ridiculous ever remains Crash. Others in the past 15 years that stunned me include Gosford Park, The Green Mile, and Four Weddings and a Funeral.

The list could be better not including The Hours. Stephen Daldry´s second film was great in many levels (the acting ensemble, a very well adapted screenplay and astonishing editing and music). That year you have better options to include in this list like forgettable musical Chicago.

Other missings in the list:
Seabiscuit, Braveheart, The Cider House Rules, A Beautiful Mind, Life is Beautiful, Finding Neverland, Driving Miss Daisy.

@alluhrey: It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a "woman's movie" (I'm a guy who digs the first Sisterhood of the Traveling pants). It has all to do with the fact that The Hours is a hollow, pretentious navel gazer of a movie that's as subtle as a wrecking ball to the face.

I admired "The Hours" but remember feeling that something was missing. Maybe, I need to watch it again.

BTW, no one mentioned "Titanic"…

I very much agree with The Hours' inclusion on this list, and am glad someone pointed it out for the pretentious, shameless Oscar-bait that it is.

However, what is more shocking to me than all these Best Picture nominees are almost all of the Best Picture winners of this decade. Admittedly, this is somewhat off-topic, but if Gladiator (well-executed popcorn entertainment), A Beautiful Mind (crowd-pleasing fluff), Chicago (don't get me started), The Return of the King (a veiled win for The Fellowship of the Ring, which was also well-executed popcorn entertainment), Million Dollar Baby (cliched, formulaic hokum), Crash (we all know about this one), and The Departed (a veiled win for any of the classic Scorsese films that should have won Best Picture) deserved to be called the best American movie of the year, then that says a lot about what the Academy considers are good movies.

Then again, the Oscars have traditionally rewarded movies based on any number of factors except quality, anyway. This was evident even back in 1952—how else do you explain the landmark High Noon losing to The Greatest Show on Earth?

I completely disagree with including The hours on this list. It was one the best movies in 2002 and the performances are superb. Adaptation is a great movie too, though.

I wasn't a big fan of the hours. Didn't blow me away so I agree. Also u can't believe cool hand luke was not nom that's just sick I'll agree with the massive amounts of acid excuse! This is slightly off topic but I worrie thy Christopher Nolan will be like another amazing underrated director Michael Mann and never win a best director

Completely agree with you on THE HOURS. It had some showy performances, but the story wasn't very involving. It was a glorified soap opera, and Nicole Kidman winning because she had a fake nose has always pissed me off! And lead actress? Julianne Moore had more screentime than Kidman in this thing and she got nominated for supporting. F-you! Academy. You were 100% right to include this on your list.

I agree with John's assessment of the Best Picture winners of the last decade. The Academy has shown time and time again that they can be taken in easily by obnoxious, pretentious tripe like Crash and to a lesser extent, Gladiator, or they just hand out apology awards to movies like Return of the King and The Departed(and this is only concerning the Best Picture winners, mind you). IMO, their nomination of The Reader and even The Curious Case of Benjamin Button over The Dark Knight is a perfect example of their gullibility and their failure to go against their ridiculously self-imposed conformity rather than their snobbery.

Thanks a lot! It has taken me years to suppress the memory of these stinkers. Yes, I said, "Stinkers." Some stunk coming into the Oscars and some just gained their aroma from fermenting under the Oscar spotlight. John, #20, I agree with you almost whole heartedly. I disagree about Crash, if for no other reason than the Oscar that year would have surely gone to Brokeback Mountain which had only two distinctions: it broke the gay romance barrier (huge, I know) and Keith Ledger's performance was phenominal. (Heath himself didn't win as best actor, of course.)

Sorry, but including The Hours on this list is completely, absolutely wrong – and, to add insult, even the "replacement" is wrong: "Adaptation"? cool one, but basically a well-acted and well-written stunt and nothing more.. and THAT'S a movie no one remembers about, nowadays. Multillayered "Far from Heaven" would have been a far better and much more interesting choice.
Anyway, the inclusion of The Hours among the nominees was far from being a "WTF" moment, it was totally expected, and if memory assists me – and it does – the only real (although pleasant) surprise in the best picture category was "The Pianist", considered a real dark horse until few hours before the announcement of nominations.
The Hours, it must be remembered, was selected in competition both in Venice (and then withdrawn because unfinished yet) and – subsequently – in Berlin. Calling it a "bewildering best picture nominee" has more to do with mr. Frank personal (and in this case, questionable) taste, than with the effective quality of the movie. Unless mr. Frank implies that his tastes are better even of two selecting committees of two of the most revered film festivals in the world…

I know it's been said enough times, but i'm going to repeat it…'The Hours' is one of the best films of the decade. I agree with most of your picks on this list, and I agree with your decision to maybe dislike 'The Hours' (to each their own, I suppose). But to call it a WTF nomination devoid of any honest emotion is kinda ridiculous.

Almost Famous to me is unforgettable! It should have been nominated, ugh!

I don't think it deserved to win Best Picture, but I didn't have a problem with Shakespeare in Love garnering a nomination for Best Picture. It's a solid, enjoyable, well crafted film.

I also think that Star Wars shouldn't appear on a list such as this. It was a cultural phenomenon, and remains, to this day, one of the best escapist films of all-time.

This is a great article and I'd endorse most of what's on the list, but I have to join the majority in disagreeing over the inclusion of The Hours – it's a wonderful, thought provoking film and I might not have talked about it recently but it stands out in my memory from having seen it years ago.

What should be included in the list – Crash obviously – over-hyped, pretenious and laughable in places. The film that should have been nominated – The Lives of Others – in addition to its foreign language win – or do best pcitures have to be in English?

Why would you include The Hours? Definitely deserved its nomination and yeah Adaptation is great too, but The Hours is a haunting film, not pretentious Oscar bait, in fact I'm so glad it was nominated because (personally) I didn't think they would like it all that much. Glad I was wrong!

My idea of a great film: one that you never tire of watching. The true test of the greatness of a film is wither a large number of people are still watching it decades after it's initial release. It's not about the film's flaws (because what film is ever unflawed in some way), but instead, if you find yourself rewatching it, again, and again. The subject matter is irrelevant. A film doesn't have to be "serious" to be great, but it MUST be entertaining. Many of the most popular films from the 30's, 40's, and 50's, that still resonate with audiences today, are largely, of an escapist variety. It's good for a film to win awards, but in order to really be remembered, and stand the test of time, it must win over the populace as a whole. Not just a collection of critics.

See here. I have to drop back in and defend "Crash," one of my favorite films. It's a gritty slice of life pic that is often dismissed by its detractors. That I like it is sufficient to me, but once again I will say that the year it won was a two man race between Crash & Brokeback Mountain and BBM was no Oscar best. I will also say that I enjoyed The Hours but because it was a bit artsy-fartsy for the usual Oscar winner, it surprised me when it won. I thought that it having won was a good sign for the future but have since changed my mind. Too many pictures seem to be produced just for awards and not for audiences. One should be able to do both…thus my enchantment with Crash.

@marco volpe: A film does not have to be good to be selected for either of those festivals or any festival. And yes, of course I have better taste than either of those committees and the Academy of Motion Arts and Sciences too. What? Don't you?

The Hours left me completely and utterly cold. I think I actually multitasked while I watched it, something I rarely do. It had no emotion to it whatsoever.

I actually had to go and look up Star Wars, because I couldn't believe it had actually been nominated. And George Lucas got a nomination for directing! Ah, to be innocent again and not know the awful, awful truth about that man's "talent"…

The Oscars have gotten to be such a joke. It's gotten to the point where you can guess which films will be nominated just from the trailers. I think that's all some of the voters actually watch.

The Hours is one of those films that, not unlike Daldry's other films, either you think is amazing or boring & baity. I loved it, and think it was the best picture of that year. The performances are each incredibly powerful, both individually and combined, and the score is the best of, quite possibly, the decade. besides, i think that it's easy to cop-out on a film because it is "baity", but honestly, when it is done as well as it is, who really cares/notices it? The fact of the matter is that films shouldn't strive to avoid being baity just to avoid it, compromising story, acting, and directing to look like they aren't trying too hard. the only thing worse than a bad film is a film that tries too hard, something The Hours never does, at least in my opinion, just to stay away from backlash. i don't define films on whether or not they are "baity", just on quality, whether they be about the holocaust, women in crisis, gay people, aids, poverty, epics, or musicals.

@davidfrank: i completely disagree with your opinion, 2002 is one of the strongest race at the oscars, actress, actors, director, and also best picture. In fact that chicago win, i think it is well deserved cause remembering i`m not a fan of musical in a way, at all. But somehow, brilliantly, chicago made me enjoy every minute of twist on that film.
As for the hours, It sooooo meant to be at the best picture. It`s one of great ensemble performances by all cast in it. Stephen Daldry directed it beautifully as of any movies he made (AND YES, I`M TALKING ABOUT THE READER AS WELL). Strong performances, strong story and beatifully yet tragic excecuted……
So, that movie shouldn`t be on the list in my point of view, but i still respect your decision though.
Regards from Indonesia

Star Wars, The Hours, Shakespeare in Love & Chocolat!! Each of these unique and truly great films was worthy of nominations for Best Picture. Now, one could make a case that each of these films wouldn't have deserved a "WIN" for Best Picture – but surely they deserved nominations.

While Annie Hall is a classic, I wouldn't have been upset if Star Wars had beat it out for the '77 Best Picture – sorry Woody.

I agree with every single one of these picks, and you hit the nail on the head with Dr. Dolittle (In Cold Blood should have been nominated AND won!). I would probably pick either Ghost or Fatal Attraction as the #1 most bewildering. I'm going to throw a few out there;

Love Story (1970) – Nothing more than a schmaltzy, poorly-acted, cheese-fest. I guess it made a ton of money. But yeah, Little Big Man should have been recognized.

Heaven Can Wait (1978) – Good movie, but pretty light stuff.

Scent of a Woman (1992) – Al Pacino's hammy performance as the centerpiece of an otherwise mediocre film.

Erin Brockavich (2000) – I agree that Chocolot is the bigger atrocity, but THIS over Almost Famous, Requiem For a Dream, and O Brother Where Art Thou? Geez…

Seabiscuit (2003) – Yuck. A pretty but hollow film. Where were 21 Grams, Finding Nemo, In America, House of Sand and Fog…

As many here, I disagree with the inclusion of The Hours. It's my all-time favorite film and I don't think it's shallow at all. It might be an Oscar-bait, but it was way deeper than others similar to this. Think of Cold Mountain. THAT was Oscar-bait, and a failed one. The Hours, instead, is a piece of poetry.

DAVID FRANK: Gotta admit, I, too, plotzzed when "Saving Private Ryan" didn't win best picture…but years later, I find that although I've watched the aforementioned film three or four times more since (and will do so again), I have also re-watched "Shakespeare in Love." What's more, I've rewatched the latter even more times. Partly, because my wife (and I) enjoy the romantic-comedy aspect; but also because the script — with all of it's inside jabs _at_ the movie industry, and its references to the bad habits of even the best of writers (procrastination, anyone?) — ring so damn true. Like you, I first thought it was too light. Revaluation of the script and the excellent acting as proven otherwise.

Which may be why I stopped reading your list after the first page (if you went awry with choice number two, it goes without saying that there'll be other flaws in your logic).

Cheers…and better luck (logic) next time,
Dt Shindler

Addendum: fill in the missing "h" and delete the extra "a" as needed above (typos: alongside procrastination, yet another writerly bane).

I read one comment where someone theorized that "Shakespeare in Love" one over "Saving Private Ryan" because "The Thin Red Line" was in the competition, too. So the two war movies canceled each other out and "Shakespeare in Love" won.

To tell the truth, I didn't like "Saving Private Ryan" when I watched it. But I really, REALLY liked "Shakespeare in Love." And as for "The Thin Red Line"… well, I liked it all right when watching it, but it's one of those movies that gets better AFTER you've watched it. It ages in the memory like fine wine. I'll be obligated to watch it again.

wow, a lot of surprises there!I do not think that the Reader being nominated is a shocker after seeing that list.

One person's meat is another's poison. I LOVE "Shakespeare in Love" – and have seen it three times in the last year and each time, I loved it. Anybody remember William Goldman's famous article lambasting "Saving Private Ryan"and endorsing "Shakespeare?" Shakespeare is wonderfully written, acted and speaks to the creative part of me. And no, I did not receive any money from Harvey Weinstein. Just because you didn't like it …

I agree with some of these 'wtfs?' but I disagree with some too! The criteria for 'Best Picture' are so wide and varying that each nominee has had something that has obviously captured people. I think that some of the above, e.g. Star Wars and Doctor Dolittle provided people with something 'new' and 'different' to that which had been seen before. As I said, the nominees depend on such a variety of criteria that it's no wonder some of these 'crazy' nominations are in there. What I am meaning to say, no very elegantly is that I agree whole heartedly with many of these, I understand why they got in there, maybe with the exception of Airplane! I disagree with Ghost, The Hours and especially as a Brit, The Full Monty. I think that those films were chosen because of the acting and the writing. Ghost, as we all know, deservedly won an Oscar for Whoopi, but it also won for its screenplay. Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore were good, but there was just something about the film and its story that was magical. Nicole Kidman won Best Actress for The Hours and the film was also nominated for writing. I think she was good in it, but I see your point about the 'apology' for Moulin Rouge. However, I think that arguably, Ed Harris and Julianne Moore put in quite brilliant performances. Julianne Moore was robbed of the Oscar by Catherine Zeta-Jones. It's a disgrace that she didn't win. Chris Cooper won the Oscar in Harris's category, but he would have been just as deserving a winner. His performance 'gave me goose pimples.' (Cliched I know, but true in this case!). Anyway, my point is that those brilliant performances plus a very good (if not a little long winded) script made for a very good film. The Full Monty's writing was nominated for an Oscar and it won acting awards (out of a lot of nominations) in the BAFTA awards. Of course it would get more from the awards in its country of origin, but I do think that it arguably had a certain 'Je ne sais quoi' about it. It was so not just about people wanting to strip. It was an all round brilliantly made film. Its humour is typically UK particularly Northern England based and I am slightly biased, but it was very cleverly made.
I half see your point about Shakespeare In Love. If you look at it on the outside, it was not a definite. I know it's a British film again! However, the acting and the writing was so clever and turned it from a film that could have been a silly mess into a film that had poignance and meaning. There were some bloopers, like Rupert Everett whose performances I normally enjoy, but who I could not take seriously in this film and Martin Clunes, an English comedy actor. Why was he chosen in this?! Geoffrey Rush is brilliant in a small part and so is Dame Judi Dench. I also like Joseph Fiennes as Shakespeare. Paltrow was alright, but I do think that Cate Blanchett or Emily Watson were better that year. What I am saying is that it had very good parts to it. Nominated for Best Picture, yes. Won? Not really. Life Is Beautiful beat it for me. Which other films do people think were not worthy?

I have just seen a post about Prince Of Tides and Lord Of The Rings. I hated Lord Of The Rings and fell asleep at the cinema in all three films, however, there were some pretty amazing parts of it that meant it at least deserved a nomination.
Prince Of Tides…No, although some fairly good acting in it. Scent Of A Woman…same thing.
Crash! How can people say that it was not worthy?! People would have been less surprised at Brokeback Mountain which was very good, but overall Crash said something to everybody. It was a social statement that rang bells in everyone's heads. The writing was absolutely first class.
All a matter of conjecture, I know, but come on! Crash! (I do think they should have chosen a better name though, so as not to match the film that was mentioned above about 'car crashes' and the kicks people got from them…bad naming ceremony.)

Plus…Titanic. Chick flick? Yes, maybe, but I bet all posters have seen it and couldn't stop themselves watching it. It was great.

VICTORIA: re. "Shakespeare in Love" and your question about Martin Clunes and inability to take Everett seriously: it was a _comedy_! You WEREN'T supposed to take Everett (or his portrayal of the fictional Marlowe) too seriously; and the answer to your goofy question about Clune can be found in the preceding sentence as well.
(Contrary to plebian belief, comedy can contain moments of tragedy and drama; and tragedy can contain moments of comedy).

As for Titanic: you're absolutely right. It wasn't a "chick flick". Perhaps Cameron's penchant for writing strong female roles (Ridley in "Aliens"; Sarah Connor in "Terminator and, especially, "Terminator 2"; Lindsay in "The Abyss"; Rose in "Titanic") and/or his penchant for weaving love stories into his films ("Terminator," "The Abyss", "Titanic") has something to to with that. But I mostly think that misconception came about due to the "Leo Mania" that was happening around the time that "Titanic" came out.
Either way, "Titanic" moves as fast as any of Cameron's thrillers — which is saying something, since the movie was nearly three hours long.

I consider The Hours one of the best movie ever. The entire cast including Ed Harris, Miranda Richardson and John C. Riley did an amazing job. Everything direction to music was brilliant. The inclusion of The Hours in this list cannot, in any way, be justified. Didn't like it? Watch it again and try to look deeper. There is nothing superficial about this movie.

You lost plenty of credibility with Star Wars. Star Wars changed the way Hollywood crafts its movies forever. It literally threw us into a world we couldn't even imagine. THAT was the best picture of 1977, period.

Excellent list. I agree on every single film. Especially The Hours. I never understood how people could see anything past Nicole Kidmans over-enlarged nose. I also agree with replier Victoria Cain. LOTR and Titanic should be on the list. Ridiculous movies.

Every one of these films was a better movie than obnoxious bloviating brainfart known as CRASH.

DT Schindler!
Yes. I am aware that Shakespeare In Love is a comedy!
However, I think that Rupert Everett was trying too hard to be serious and comical at the same time! When I say "I couldn't take them seriously," I mean I couldn't take seriously them as valuable parts of the film…i.e. seriously in this context doesn't mean 'serious'!
Look at the guy who played the stuttering Wabash in the film, Mark Williams. He is arguably quite a comedic character (in a partially comedic film!) and he is very natural..and it's incredibly funny! I take hiim 'seriously' because of his performance…not in thinking that he is playing a hugely serious part! You might not have enjoyed his performance as I did… I didn't enjoy Martin Clunes Rupert Everett in it.
But as I said, it's all a matter of conjecture rather than down to fact when it comes to that.
Also, having studied Shakespeare, I am fully aware that '…comedy can contain moments of tragedy and drama; and tragedy can contain moments of comedy.' I am sure you were not calling me a pleb….but (!) Shakespeare is the master of the tragedy/comedy/drama parodies and I agree that Shakespeare In Love is good in that it keeps (in the most part) the Shakespearian tone within its plot.
I am sure that there are many other debates that we could have on this topic! It's actually very interesting…!
I await a reply…or cheekily a 'comeback'!

@Bruce: Either way, Crash getting nominated for an Oscar is not Bewildering… it was expected.

Oh yes…and also, I totally agree that 'Leomania' had a very huge(!) part to play in the success of Titanic and why many teenage girls had obsessions with it… Obviously none of them had any say in the Oscars and at the time and even now, they probably couldn't tell you much about what it won on the night! (Leo wasn't nominated so what was the point!?!!)

Oh yes…Everett played a 'fictional version' of Christopher Marlowe…but he did exist! There were legendary tales of a feud between the two, which obviously they played on in the film….
He was real!

Movies that shoud be on this list

Crash – if you defended this movie I have nothing but utter contempt for you and your progeny. How can anyone ever believe a cop who sticks his fingers in innocent women would ever have it in his character to save a woman from a car that's about to explode? Anyone ever hear of a rapist turned hero? He would be the first one, and therefore an absolute landmark in character discontinuity as well as audience stupidity.

Little miss sunshine – how did the kid not know he was colorblind to green? you're telling me he's never stared at a traffic light? What do granny smith apples look like? Steve carell's character could have been straight instead of gay, it wouldn't have made a difference. That was just for a cheap laugh, or to add garnish to an already dull character. The family joining in on the little girl's corny dance was predictable. The movie was not at all funny, poignant, or uplifting.

Lost in translation – OMFG did this movie suck.

Million dollar baby – Look I like eastwood, but I hate haggis. Do you know how strong boxers are? especially in the neck? They take punches to the head for a living, and yes many times to the neck as well. If there's any part of a boxer's body that can withstand punishment, it's the neck. Plus it's just bad writing for such an utterly crazy coincidence to have occurred.

BRANDO: To my utter dismay and disgust, I lived next to a fireman (who had a couple of firefighter sons) for about 18 years while raising a child in the part of purgatory known as the Midwest (KC, MO). The guy and his spawn were drunken assholes, who partied in their driveway (next the bedroom windows of our home) about 2 or 3 days/nights out of the week. I stopped one of his sons from smacking his young wife around at about 2 a.m. They once lined up and tried to threaten/intimidate me, but the worse that they could do was call me the usual epithets such melonheads usually come up with (I did my time in the Army — I've heard it all). Assholes, drunkards, and even wife-beaters. Yet they ocassionally ran into a burning building to save someone.

Perhaps your utter contempt should be saved for your own, limited, understanding of the human condition. And since you couldn't get the first complaint right, no one can read the rest of your list with any seriousness.

In the meantime, a better question might be: what is it that makes you so shortsighted? Is it simply due to the fact that you typify the arrogance and lack of understanding of my gender? Is it because you have no experience in life but like to think that watching movies makes up for it? Or is it because you are just, well, young and dumb?

We all await (with breath properly bated) the answers to these and other questions. (And if you believe that, I've a bridge to sell you).

Go now, and sin no more.
-DTS

VICTORIA: Ah, hell. I'm a bit of a romantic (hence, the enjoyment of "Shakespeare") so I have no smartass comments to make to someone who obviously took my first bunch with such good humor. Yup, I _did _ know Marlowe was real person. And since you're a lover of Shakespeare, you might enjoy two books I had the chance to run across during my workdays a few years back: SHAKESPEARE AFTER ALL and WILL IN THE WORLD. Excellent books both of them, shedding a bit more light on the shadowy life of the Bard. (If you'd like to continue discussions about books and writers elsewhere, let me know your email and I'll drop you a line).

Cheers
DTS

@Brando:

Ah, Rope of Silicon discussions, the most civilized and intelligent on the web IMO. Usually I can be told I'm completely wrong without being subjected to personal insults. So Brando, you're in the wrong discussion pool.

Crash. It's about the complexity of humanity. Crash was a strange journey into the ramifications of our lack of community identification, the isolation we impose upon ourselves unknowingly. It also about the impact we nevertheless have upon one another, because, like it or not, we are truely a community. That cop is not a killer, he won't stand by and watch her die. But he is a bigot. We all have it within us to be less than we want to be, and sometimes more than we hope to be. Most criticism of Crash faults it's tremendous use of coincidence. Because this is a drama and not a documentary, that didn't bother me. It served a purpose.

Little Miss Sunshine. Describe the color green to someone who can't see it. And tell me how someone who doesn't see green knows that. My father can't see blue. He was a grown adult, being tested to join the army before he discovered it. (Just like the test the boy in the film is taking.) When questioned, he says blue is gray to him but he only says that because he can't distrinquish between shades of blue and shades of gray.

As Dt Shindler says, "And since you couldn’t get the first complaint right, no one can read the rest of your list with any seriousness."

What a coincidence that the two detractors to my comment have both replied back to me with personal experiences that can never be verified.

DTS – as fictitious and heart warming a story about your wife-beater with a heart of gold was, it does not negate the fact that Crash was a terrible movie that only served to reinforce stereotypes. I'm sure growing up in the midwest, you've had to deal with all sorts of different races and race relations on a daily basis. Most people who believe this movie was eye opening are, and I'm quoting you here, the type of people who are short sighted and like to believe watching movies will make up for a lack of life experience. Am I right or not, country boy?

Patricia- as saddened I was to hear your story about your would be soldier dad who will never know when it's going to rain, I have no other choice but to completely disregard your "personal" story.

In hindsight; yes there may have been rapist martyrs, and pasty colorblind mutes, but these types of people can only, in fiction, be believed and embraced as legit through character development for which I'm sorry to say Crash and Little miss sunshine have none. I blame it on their ensemble casts. (except ludacriss; he was a divine revelation)

Lastly, before I set off never to even glimpse at your responses, let me say this:

Patricia: don't trust DTS, he wants your email and to spew his nonsense about shakespeare because he is a lonely, old man who may be book smart, (and that is a huge maybe), but is definitely not schooled in the arts of womanly delights (Virgin!). If you were smart at all, (and that is a huge if) you would not give this man-child your email address.

Go and sin no more? I've a bridge to sell you? – what a F*ing douche.

BRANDO: You're right. I obviously made up that story about walking next door in the middle of the night, and telling Chad L___ to hold it down (for the umpteenth time), only to realize he'd been abusing his young wife. Fortunately, she was okay, and managed to wise up and divorce him months late. (I also made up the stuff about the Army — and only dreamed that I've lived on four different continents, the present one being Australia, as a U.S. citizen). You have me dead to rights. Ah'm jest a country hick (or a hickbilly, perhaps, living most of my life via the internet). You have insight into the human condition, and immediately recognized someone who sits in front of their keyboard (using say, a fictitious name) and slings pointless accusations and pinheaded, childish names (douche bag — there's a clever retort), thereby advancing the cause of our gender even further (while stuffing his face full of cupcakes, doughnuts and burgers). As for the man-child comment — gotta admit, I sometimes wish I _was_ a bit younger — than chuckleheads like you come along and make me realize my age is a good one.

By the way, deadeye: I was writing to Victoria when talking about Shakespeare and emails. You can cleverly respond (as above) if you like, but since I'm done with ya (and since you are, of course, not reading this), your time would be better spent popping pimples and hitting a treadmill.

Cheers from OZ,
DTS
P.S. PATRICIA: Don't mind the comments of the cowardly, pseudononymous vidiot above ("Brad"): Ambulatory phlegm like that couldn't muster enough spinal fluid to form a coherent thought.

PATRICIA: Whoops — make that "Brando." Typos — they're a bitch.
Cheers,
DTS

Dr. Dolittle was nominated instead of Cool Hand Luke??? WTF what was the academy thinking??

Brando…I don't understand. What does Crash do? Does it reinforce stereotypes or does it create unbelievable scenarios e.g. (How can anyone ever believe a cop who sticks his fingers in innocent women would ever have it in his character to save a woman from a car that’s about to explode? Anyone ever hear of a rapist turned hero? He would be the first one, and therefore an absolute landmark in character discontinuity as well as audience stupidity.)?
Not sure I understand the points you make about it being such a bad film.
I agree with Patricia and DTS. It explores many different aspects of human nature. It depicts some unusual scenarios and makes 'silent, heard by watching the film' comments on how people from different backgrounds and situations MAY react to them.
If it has tried to imply that this was the way all humans would react in these situations, I would have watched it with less enthusiasm. But it doesn't. It explores and suggests ideas that make one think.
That is the beauty of the film. Everyone can come to their own conclusions about it and everyone is affected in a different way. Therefore, of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but I would be interested to hear it expressed in more detail and without the anger! It's only a film!
DTS: will get back to you!

Also, Brando, I'd love to hear which films you do like and why….
But if you are going to swear and throw personal insults at me, I'd prefer that you didn't.

Also….! (I always think of something else after I have posted something)! What do people think of Slumdog Millionaire in light of the Oscars?
I think Doubt and Milk deserved more gongs than they got (i.e. 0 and 2 respectively). Having said that, Milk got two of the main ones I know….
I am still trying to set my body clock back to the right time after watching the Oscars!

Hey VICTORIA: I'll be standing by (re., "getting back" to me). As for "Slumdog": I'm one of those who — although I've only seen it once (in theaters — movies here in OZ are rather expensive — $10 on discount days) — has come to love it unreservedly. But I have to admit to bias where Danny Boyle is concerned, because after watching "Trainspottting," "Sunshine," "A Life Less Ordinary" and (especially) "Millions," I put him in my list of favorite, modern-day directors. I even dig the dance scene at the end (clearly meant to be an imaginary experience of the two lovers — a great nod to the Bollywood "rule" of _always_ putting singing or dancing in every movie (I think Boyle should option A SON OF THE CIRCUS by John Irving — a favorite writer — _that_ would make for one helluva film).

Goodonya (to use Aussie-speak) for being so polite to "Brando" when his posts didn't warrant it. It's late on this side of the world, so good night as well.
Cheers,
DTS

@Dt Shindler: I appreciate the moral support, DT. That Brando guy did raise my ire….making such insulting personal remarks.

And I'd just like to add that my Dad served honorably in the U.S. Army during WWII in the South Pacific, not seeing the color blue was not considered an obstacle for service.

Victoria: Intelligent entries. Enjoyed a return to sanity here at the Rope.

Patricia: My pleasure

Cheers,
DTS

What no mention of The Greatest Show on Earth in 1952 being nominated [and winning] which prevented Singing in the Rain from being nominated?

About the films…I think "Chocolat" and "Shakespeare in Love" are the worst on the list.

You are wrong about "The Hours".

It had become a film that actually has a fan base (from people discovering the film) and many people still love it, I think is a honest portrayal of the book, a great adaption, and a deep look into the world of women…don't remember a recently film achieving something like that.

I actually think it has aged well and better than the other film that actually won that same year, "Chicago".

I can't but disagree with you on including The Hours in the list which loses suddenly much of its interest to me. Such a thought-provoking, deeply-moving film is -with adaptation- definitly the best movie of 2002. Years later i can't remove nor the images, nor the terrific performances nor the score from my head. You must recheck it dude.

While I agree that of the films on the list above probably didn’t deserve to be Best Picture nominees, I would surely include the extremely manipulative, unbearably preachy and exceedingly contrived "CRASH" on top of that list. There were 10 nominees in two categories for “Best Picture” at the Golden Globes and Crash was understandably NOT nominated. After an unprecedented “Oscar campaign”, it did eventually get nominated at the Oscars and won the Best Picture trophy it should never have been nominated for in the first place. What a joke that was! Especially since there was the unforgettable “Brokeback Mountain” which was a landmark film and a true masterpiece; it was the most talked-about & decorated film of the year and remains one of the most honoured films of all time. What were they thinking?!

I recommend to everyone to read reviews on Crash by A.O. Scott in the NY Times: “So what kind of a movie is "Crash"? A frustrating movie: full of heart and devoid of life; crudely manipulative when it tries hardest to be subtle; and profoundly complacent in spite of its intention to unsettle and disturb.”; or by Steve Lopez in the LA Times: “Best Picture Misses the Big Picture – Crash felt like an artless, dated and manipulative morality tale.”; or by Katrina Onstad of the CBC: “While its air of self-importance and the sheer number of tragedies that befall the characters will probably place Crash beyond critical reproach, it is actually a rather silly film… for all its high-mindedness and melodrama, in the end, Crash delivers a Sesame Street message.”

Enjoy your take on things…agree on most…haven't seen all these "paragons of artistic talents".

You missed one…MOONSTRUCK…I'm still trying to figure that one out. But then your list was only 10…could have been more, I'm sure!

Keep up the good work!!!

Someone should kill Harvey Weinstein. And Shakespere in Love shouldn't have beaten SPR. That's one of my favorite war movies of all-time.

nothing is worse than shakspere in love to me, it won over saving private ryan and american history x (didn't even get a look). being nominated is one thing beating out two masterpeices is another

Toy Story should have been nominated instead of that Sense and Sensibility crap.

@Tim: Only one person made Dr. Dolittle funny and that was Eddie Murphy