It won best picture but . . .

"Coal Miner's Daughter" was a pleasant bio-pic but hardly earth-shattering as a piece of film-making. Sissy Spacek was good as Loretta Lynn but she was amazing as the grown-up, retarded daughter in "Straight Story," the David Lynch film about a man who heals his breach with his dying brother by driving 300 miles on a riding lawn mower.
She brought dignity to a hard-to-play role.

As for 1990, I can't believe that a piece of fluff like, "Ghost" could ever contend as best film. There must have been politics behind that one: maybe it was there to keep another film off.

As for, "Ordinary People," I remember when the novel came out -- supposedly, this Chicago housewife penned it as her first -- a friend told me it was "ordinary."

With directors like Scorcese, Kubrick and Altman, their lesser efforts are almost always better than most director's best efforts. Well, I would not give Altman kudos for "Popeye" (it's just eccentrically silly) and "Quintet," possibly the worst sci-fi film in history, giving new meaning to the term mumbo jumbo.

I agree with you, plainoldme -- "Ghost" being nominated shocked the hell out of me and the film critics. I just wouldn't make it a point to see "Coal Miner's Daughter" or "Ghost" again, let alone "Ordinary People." I think the voting body of the Academy have had many twinges of hindsight that have left them wordless about why some films were nominated and others left out. Ebert and Roeper always have one show with their case for nominating films, actors and directors. The top ten lists of critics hardly ever match what the Academy votes. The award is, after all, a self-congratulatory pat of the back for Hollywood by Hollywood. They don't call it Tinsel Town for nuthin.'

There are probably 3 things I liked about Million Dollar Baby that set it apart from the average film.

1. Because of the topics it left people emotional in one form or another. (Some of that emotion for some people seems to express itself in how bad the film is.) I can't find too many people that don't really care after seeing it for the first time.

2. It dealt with a topic that itself is controversial, euthanasia.
(Controversy is always big for Oscar voting.)

3. Like "Unforgiven" by Eastwood it doesn't make this a case of "the right thing". You are left dealing with people that make choices that might not be right but they have to live with them. Like life in general, this movie raises more questions than it answers. What caused the daughter to always return the letters that he wrote every week? How can anyone in real life be like Danger? (We all know people like that though. Eager to do something that they are totally incapable of ever doing.) The movie is filled with people with dreams about their futures that can't or won't ever come true. It doesn't make for an "uplifting story" but it does have a strong message.

The topic of MDB was not euthanasia. Euthanasia was a way to end the film. In many ways, euthanasia here was just a stand in for personal responsibility. Eastwood's character continually said that he didn't train girls. He violated his own principals. He then had to makes amends for that violation.

I went to see the film because I read the right made a to do over the matter of euthanasia. I read that a bad punch paralyzed the girl, but, the cause of her paralysis was her coach's having put the corner stool in place.

A big point in the voice over narrative was that Maggie was trash. I feel that the notion of trash and who is trash had more to do with this movie than euthanasia.

The three films mentioned here as being undeserving winners all were directed by actor/directors. "Ordinary People" by Robert Redford, "Dances With Wolves" by Kevin Costner, and "Million Dollar Baby" by Clint Eastwood.

Could that have something to do with it? I could see a few reasons. For one, these are all iconic American actors who have built up a huge store of goodwill. Costner has spent it since, but at the time of "Dances With Wolves" he was the guy from "The Untouchables," "Bull Durham" and "Field of Dreams."

tres sharp observation sozzie.

I don't think the character Eastwood played in Million Dollar Baby ever love anybody in his life and, yet, he taught this nutty girl to fight simply because she tried so hard. Something extraordinary happened when the tough, hard little wirey coach told that innocent gullible female what mcgushla meant - my darlin, my blood. He loved the woman, loved her, and could not leave her laying in that bed. He felt responsible for her condition. I think he also wanted to make up for whatever he did to his lost daughter.

The priest was probably trying to tell Eastwood's character that making up with his daughter was more important than any biblical crap.

Some stories live for some people, but not others.

Speaking of "Ghost"... I'm sure the Oscar Whoopi Goldberg won for that unchallenging part, was payback for being slighted on her superb job in "The Color Purple"

POM,



Did you read my post? I said it dealt with several topics, one of which is controversial. My wife disliked the film for several reasons. She hates boxing. She didn't like the fact that he killed the paralyzed girl. As I pointed out to her, the film made an emotional impact. Isn't that what a good film is supposed to do?


Reread my statement number 3 about this film. This film was about people making choices and having to live with them.


This is some pretty minor quibbling. The punch that caused her to hit the stool was a "bad" punch. It was illegal under the rules of boxing since it was after the bell.

soz writes:


"Ordinary People" - a film stuck in its time. The message doesn't get past the 80s

"Dances with Wolves" - great cinematography, deals with that controversial topic of "Native Americans were screwed by the whites", mildly interesting characters. Probably was the best film that year.

MDB - I liked it more than Aviator. I liked "Sideways" more than Aviator too.

The worst film ever to win an oscar was mentioned in the first post so I didn't bring it up again but I guess I have to....

Titanic. yuck. The plot was simple formula, the characters were cardboard cutouts.

The only reason this movie won was because of technical effects and they have a category for that. If they hadn't built a boat to film that piece of crap, you would find it in the video stores next to "Die Hard 2."

I guess this shows why they make so many different movies. We all have different ideas about what makes a good one.

. It dealt with a topic that itself is controversial, euthanasia.
(Controversy is always big for Oscar voting.)

Parados -- The above is from your post.

POM wrote:

Yes? and?

The movie did touch on the topic of euthanasia. Was it the focus of the film? no. My point was merely that a film that touches in any way shape or form on a controversial topic is more daring than one that doesn't do that and thus more likely to win the Oscar. "A topic" is not the same thing as "the topic." I don't think the only "topic" in "Dances with Wolves" was how Indians were treated by the whites but it is touched upon and probably played a part in why it won. I also think the euthanisia played a part in MDB winning. Yes, the film could have ended with her going off to college and becoming a leading physicist but it would have been a much different film then and probably wouldn't have been nominated.

The beauty of art, theater and film is that we don't have to agree on the meanings or the reasons why the artist used a particular color or plot device. I liked the film and tried to express why I did and why I thought it won the Oscar. I apologize if I wasn't clear in expressing that.

That could have tipped the scales away from "The Aviator" even though Hughes was always a controversial figure and a Hollywood legend to boot. Just the sequence where he produces and directs "Hell's Angels" was worth the price of admission. Oscar usually favors epic films but I think "Sideways" may have also stolen some votes away from Scorcese. For many Academy voters, I think a sophisticated, superbly directed comedy brings out the urge to vote for an underdog.

"Titanic" was designed for the full Panavision big screen. It relies heavily on the scale, is more than expertly shot and I didn't find the story all that bad (the New Yorker reviewer compared it to Dickens!). It's not for the jaded unromantic, of course, but it hit a note with enough moviegoers to place it well ahead of any other movie in history at the box office and it's unlikely any film will ever be able to catch up in my lifetime. Cameron himself admitted he had made a forty million dollar chick flick. Likely not as great a movie as some believe it is but definitely not as bad a movie as some think it is. I suspect some of these people tried to watch it in pan-and-scan on a 17" TV.

I should return to say that Aviator seemed a shallow movie, as a whole, without picking on the actors. It could have been a two, three-hour movie to explain Hughes highs and lows in life.

LW, I didn't think the scenes revealing Hughes' mental illness "silly" at all. For all his baggage, the man lived a spectacular life. And, yes, the young Jack Nicholson may have been perfect as Hughes. I haven't been able to think of anyone else for the part.

Disagree entirely that it's a shallow movie and I'm at a loss on the comment about "it could have been a two, three-hour movie," when it clocked in at 170 min. It could be a mini-series, that's for sure if, in fact, the story continued into the last years of his life. There's likely not enough known about that time to come up with much coherancy but the film "Howard and Me" took a stab at it. I'm not sure if we saw the same movie if the purpose wasn't to show the highs and lows of his life.

I'm glad you didn't take the scenes depicting Hughes' mental apparations as silly as I didn't take any of the film as being silly. Too bad Nicholson was too old for the young Howard Hughes but he could play the over-the-edge older Hughes.

I still feel what Scorcese did in less than three hours captured the essence of his life. Sometimes that's the best approach as one could get bogged down in dreary details like too many bio-pics. That's what happened with films like "Nicholas and Alexandra."

Found Able2Know after a few years hiatus.

My son just watched Grand Torino and laughed over most of it. He said Clint Eastwood made a movie about who Clint Eastwood would have been if had never become an actor. A cranky but macho old man.

Gran Torino was shut out of its respective Oscar year. The acting wasn't bad. The script wasn't bad. The characters were kind of interesting. It didn't deserve it's prerelease Oscar Buzz hype.

But your son seemingly has the dead on accurate correct impression on Clint Eastwood's protagonist character. Clint Eastwood as grouchy curmudgeon. Doesn't seem like too much of an acting stretch.

Yeah, I thought it was a funny assessment. He showed me a part of the movie where Clint's character Walter (my father's name and he is a cranky old man much of the time) tries to teach his neighbor's son to talk like a man. It was funny.