|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 13 posts ] |
|
Oscars '95 - F. Gump, Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption?
Oscars '95 - F. Gump, Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption?
Author |
Message |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Oscars '95 - F. Gump, Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption?
To be honest, I cannot remember a single Academy Awards Show that had three THAT beloved movies competing against each other as it happened back in 1995 that had The Shawshank Redemption (#3 all-time at IMDB) competing against Pulp Fiction (#14 all time at IMDB) and Forrest Gump )#110 all-time at IMDB). Forrest Gump won this battle in the end and got the Best Picture award along with 6 further Oscars.
There are many different opinions about these results. Many people claim that Forrest Gump's win was undeserved.
Personally, I agree with Forrest Gump having been rewarded. Forrest Gump is just such an amazing tale of a life of a person with a very simple mind that has achieved so much, but never really realized it. This is one of the very few movies that almost made me cry in the end.
The Shawshank Redemption is a really good movie with an amazing, feel-good ending. However, I think that this movie is overrated and not the absolute masterpiece people make it out to be.
Pulp Fiction is a good movie as well, but also an overrated one. The cast is brilliant, but the movie itself didn't do much to me.
What do you think, which movie would have deserved ton win back in 1995? The Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump or Pulp Fiction?
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:11 pm |
|
|
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
Never saw Shawshank Redemption.
Thought Forrest Gump was good, but not great.
Pulp Fiction was great. This deserved to win.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:15 pm |
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
You should see The Shawshank Redemption one day. You won't regret it.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:25 pm |
|
|
Goldie
Forum General
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:38 pm Posts: 7286 Location: TOP*SECRET ******************** ******************** ******************** ********************
|
Re: Oscars '95 - F. Gump, Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redempti
Dr. Lecter wrote: To be honest, I cannot remember a single Academy Awards Show that had three THAT beloved movies competing against each other as it happened back in 1995 that had The Shawshank Redemption (#3 all-time at IMDB) competing against Pulp Fiction (#14 all time at IMDB) and Forrest Gump )#110 all-time at IMDB). Forrest Gump won this battle in the end and got the Best Picture award along with 6 further Oscars.
There are many different opinions about these results. Many people claim that Forrest Gump's win was undeserved.
Personally, I agree with Forrest Gump having been rewarded. Forrest Gump is just such an amazing tale of a life of a person with a very simple mind that has achieved so much, but never really realized it. This is one of the very few movies that almost made me cry in the end.
The Shawshank Redemption is a really good movie with an amazing, feel-good ending. However, I think that this movie is overrated and not the absolute masterpiece people make it out to be.
Pulp Fiction is a good movie as well, but also an overrated one. The cast is brilliant, but the movie itself didn't do much to me.
What do you think, which movie would have deserved ton win back in 1995? The Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump or Pulp Fiction?
Shawshank Redemption. All I will say is that the IMDB grades got it right with ranking Shawshank at 10 and Pulp Fiction at 14. And neither of these movies are over-rated. To fully appreciate these movies, people probably would need to take a full semester on the cinema.
I would say more but I am keeping my comments short about these movies being overrated as I don't want to be accused of bashing Lecter's opinions/analysis again.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:37 pm |
|
|
Goldie
Forum General
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:38 pm Posts: 7286 Location: TOP*SECRET ******************** ******************** ******************** ********************
|
Re: Oscars '95 - F. Gump, Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redempti
Dr. Lecter wrote: To be honest, I cannot remember a single Academy Awards Show that had three THAT beloved movies competing against each other as it happened back in 1995 that had The Shawshank Redemption (#3 all-time at IMDB) competing against Pulp Fiction (#14 all time at IMDB) and Forrest Gump )#110 all-time at IMDB). Forrest Gump won this battle in the end and got the Best Picture award along with 6 further Oscars.
There are many different opinions about these results. Many people claim that Forrest Gump's win was undeserved.
Personally, I agree with Forrest Gump having been rewarded. Forrest Gump is just such an amazing tale of a life of a person with a very simple mind that has achieved so much, but never really realized it. This is one of the very few movies that almost made me cry in the end.
The Shawshank Redemption is a really good movie with an amazing, feel-good ending. However, I think that this movie is overrated and not the absolute masterpiece people make it out to be.
Pulp Fiction is a good movie as well, but also an overrated one. The cast is brilliant, but the movie itself didn't do much to me.
What do you think, which movie would have deserved ton win back in 1995? The Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump or Pulp Fiction?
Shawshank Redemption.
All I will say is that the IMDB grades got it right with ranking Shawshank at 10 and Pulp Fiction at 14. And neither of these movies are over-rated. To fully appreciate these movies, people probably would need to take a full semester film course on the cinema.
I would say more but I am keeping my comments short about these movies being overrated as I don't want to be accused of bashing Lecter's opinions/analysis again.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:37 pm |
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Re: Oscars '95 - F. Gump, Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redempti
Goldie wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: To be honest, I cannot remember a single Academy Awards Show that had three THAT beloved movies competing against each other as it happened back in 1995 that had The Shawshank Redemption (#3 all-time at IMDB) competing against Pulp Fiction (#14 all time at IMDB) and Forrest Gump )#110 all-time at IMDB). Forrest Gump won this battle in the end and got the Best Picture award along with 6 further Oscars.
There are many different opinions about these results. Many people claim that Forrest Gump's win was undeserved.
Personally, I agree with Forrest Gump having been rewarded. Forrest Gump is just such an amazing tale of a life of a person with a very simple mind that has achieved so much, but never really realized it. This is one of the very few movies that almost made me cry in the end.
The Shawshank Redemption is a really good movie with an amazing, feel-good ending. However, I think that this movie is overrated and not the absolute masterpiece people make it out to be.
Pulp Fiction is a good movie as well, but also an overrated one. The cast is brilliant, but the movie itself didn't do much to me.
What do you think, which movie would have deserved ton win back in 1995? The Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump or Pulp Fiction? Shawshank Redemption. All I will say is that the IMDB grades got it right with ranking Shawshank at 10 and Pulp Fiction at 14. And neither of these movies are over-rated. To fully appreciate these movies, people probably would need to take a full semester film course on the cinema.
I am sure, all people who have voted at IMDB have taken a full semester film course on the cinema. Right?
There is no definition for a "great movie". In the end, it all comes down to the opinion of each person. Everyone decides for himself if one movie is better than the other one. There is universal truth about it. The quality of movies is not like box-office. You cannot measure it.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:55 pm |
|
|
Goldie
Forum General
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:38 pm Posts: 7286 Location: TOP*SECRET ******************** ******************** ******************** ********************
|
Re: Oscars '95 - F. Gump, Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redempti
Dr. Lecter wrote: Goldie wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: To be honest, I cannot remember a single Academy Awards Show that had three THAT beloved movies competing against each other as it happened back in 1995 that had The Shawshank Redemption (#3 all-time at IMDB) competing against Pulp Fiction (#14 all time at IMDB) and Forrest Gump )#110 all-time at IMDB). Forrest Gump won this battle in the end and got the Best Picture award along with 6 further Oscars.
There are many different opinions about these results. Many people claim that Forrest Gump's win was undeserved.
Personally, I agree with Forrest Gump having been rewarded. Forrest Gump is just such an amazing tale of a life of a person with a very simple mind that has achieved so much, but never really realized it. This is one of the very few movies that almost made me cry in the end.
The Shawshank Redemption is a really good movie with an amazing, feel-good ending. However, I think that this movie is overrated and not the absolute masterpiece people make it out to be.
Pulp Fiction is a good movie as well, but also an overrated one. The cast is brilliant, but the movie itself didn't do much to me.
What do you think, which movie would have deserved ton win back in 1995? The Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump or Pulp Fiction? Shawshank Redemption. All I will say is that the IMDB grades got it right with ranking Shawshank at 10 and Pulp Fiction at 14. And neither of these movies are over-rated. To fully appreciate these movies, people probably would need to take a full semester film course on the cinema. I am sure, all people who have voted at IMDB have taken a full semester film course on the cinema. Right?There is no definition for a "great movie". In the end, it all comes down to the opinion of each person. Everyone decides for himself if one movie is better than the other one. There is universal truth about it. The quality of movies is not like box-office. You cannot measure it.
Actually, I wasn't talking about the IMDB people. I was commenting on your over-rated comment.
That said, to fully understand the greatness of the SR, you have to watch for and understand the little things that the movie does that raises it to that great level. It just can't be considered over-rated. Cause then there are too many things missed by that viewer.
SR, of course in my opinion, comes close to a perfect movie.
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:07 pm |
|
|
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Re: Oscars '95 - F. Gump, Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redempti
Goldie wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Goldie wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: To be honest, I cannot remember a single Academy Awards Show that had three THAT beloved movies competing against each other as it happened back in 1995 that had The Shawshank Redemption (#3 all-time at IMDB) competing against Pulp Fiction (#14 all time at IMDB) and Forrest Gump )#110 all-time at IMDB). Forrest Gump won this battle in the end and got the Best Picture award along with 6 further Oscars.
There are many different opinions about these results. Many people claim that Forrest Gump's win was undeserved.
Personally, I agree with Forrest Gump having been rewarded. Forrest Gump is just such an amazing tale of a life of a person with a very simple mind that has achieved so much, but never really realized it. This is one of the very few movies that almost made me cry in the end.
The Shawshank Redemption is a really good movie with an amazing, feel-good ending. However, I think that this movie is overrated and not the absolute masterpiece people make it out to be.
Pulp Fiction is a good movie as well, but also an overrated one. The cast is brilliant, but the movie itself didn't do much to me.
What do you think, which movie would have deserved ton win back in 1995? The Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump or Pulp Fiction? Shawshank Redemption. All I will say is that the IMDB grades got it right with ranking Shawshank at 10 and Pulp Fiction at 14. And neither of these movies are over-rated. To fully appreciate these movies, people probably would need to take a full semester film course on the cinema. I am sure, all people who have voted at IMDB have taken a full semester film course on the cinema. Right?There is no definition for a "great movie". In the end, it all comes down to the opinion of each person. Everyone decides for himself if one movie is better than the other one. There is universal truth about it. The quality of movies is not like box-office. You cannot measure it. Actually, I wasn't talking about the IMDB people. I was commenting on your over-rated comment. That said, to fully understand the greatness of the SR, you have to watch for and understand the little things that the movie does that raises it to that great level. It just can't be considered over-rated. Cause then there are too many things missed by that viewer. SR, of course in my opinion, comes close to a perfect movie.
Okay.
Those movies are overrated, in my opinion. I am not saying that it is a universal truth and a fact that they are overrated. I consider them overrated and there is nothing on earth that can prove the opposite. Things like "overrated" can't be proven by any facts. It is an opinion.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:11 pm |
|
|
Plot
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:40 pm Posts: 2987 Location: Free Country, USA
|
I think Gump deserved to win.
_________________ "How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice litte story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for 3 years? Got a, got a compelling protaganist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Working on, working on that for quite some time?"
Battle of the 2005 movies - Vote Now!
|
Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:54 am |
|
|
publicenemy#1
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:25 am Posts: 19201 Location: San Diego
|
Barely remember Gump, it's a fuzzy memory. I've seen Shawshank Redemption before, fuzzy too... Pulp Fiction is fantastic though.
I'll get back to you when I get Netflix again.
|
Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:40 am |
|
|
andaroo1
Lord of filth
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:47 pm Posts: 9566
|
Forrest Gump was an easy choice for the Academy. It was non-offensive, it was over emotional, and it taught a "family friendly message". If anybody ever thinks that Hollywood never panders to that audience, you are mistaken.
To me, Forrest Gump is really scattered and not really meaningful. It's a nostalgic trip with a narrator that does impossible things over and over which stretch the limit of even a logical fantasy. But a lot of people think it has an uplifting message about a person who is supposedly down on his luck, but the same effect could be achieved by following Gump on but one or two on his adventures. By the time we get to the marathon across the country it gets downright silly.
The Shawshank Redemption is a beautiful, beautiful film about platonic love between men in a difficult situation. It is the movie that is okay that men cry to, and that is what is interesting about it.
Pulp Fiction is probably the best of the three. The most memorable script/dialog, fascinating performances, more stand-out direction than the other two.
To violent at the time, however. But it and Fargo completely re-wrote the rules for indie films. We knew it at the time.
I think if we were giving out the award for that year now, there would be no second guessing Pulp Fiction.
|
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:23 am |
|
|
lovemerox
Forum General
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:16 pm Posts: 6499 Location: Down along the dixie line
|
Re: Oscars '95 - F. Gump, Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redempti
Goldie wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Goldie wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: To be honest, I cannot remember a single Academy Awards Show that had three THAT beloved movies competing against each other as it happened back in 1995 that had The Shawshank Redemption (#3 all-time at IMDB) competing against Pulp Fiction (#14 all time at IMDB) and Forrest Gump )#110 all-time at IMDB). Forrest Gump won this battle in the end and got the Best Picture award along with 6 further Oscars.
There are many different opinions about these results. Many people claim that Forrest Gump's win was undeserved.
Personally, I agree with Forrest Gump having been rewarded. Forrest Gump is just such an amazing tale of a life of a person with a very simple mind that has achieved so much, but never really realized it. This is one of the very few movies that almost made me cry in the end.
The Shawshank Redemption is a really good movie with an amazing, feel-good ending. However, I think that this movie is overrated and not the absolute masterpiece people make it out to be.
Pulp Fiction is a good movie as well, but also an overrated one. The cast is brilliant, but the movie itself didn't do much to me.
What do you think, which movie would have deserved ton win back in 1995? The Shawshank Redemption, Forrest Gump or Pulp Fiction? Shawshank Redemption. All I will say is that the IMDB grades got it right with ranking Shawshank at 10 and Pulp Fiction at 14. And neither of these movies are over-rated. To fully appreciate these movies, people probably would need to take a full semester film course on the cinema. I am sure, all people who have voted at IMDB have taken a full semester film course on the cinema. Right?There is no definition for a "great movie". In the end, it all comes down to the opinion of each person. Everyone decides for himself if one movie is better than the other one. There is universal truth about it. The quality of movies is not like box-office. You cannot measure it. Actually, I wasn't talking about the IMDB people. I was commenting on your over-rated comment. That said, to fully understand the greatness of the SR, you have to watch for and understand the little things that the movie does that raises it to that great level. It just can't be considered over-rated. Cause then there are too many things missed by that viewer. SR, of course in my opinion, comes close to a perfect movie.
Care to give your analysis on why it is a perfect film?(BTW, I loved it)
_________________
|
Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:27 pm |
|
|
neo_wolf
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:19 pm Posts: 10968
|
I love all 3 of them,My choice would be Forrest Gump.
|
Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:56 pm |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 13 posts ] |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], stuffp and 4 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|