Retrospectives and Live Oscar Reactions are probably my favorites. You guys offer such a fresh perspective on how things didn't just happen out of nowhere. Great work!
Should we talk about BAFTA here? It wasn't an Oscar precursor until 2001. In the 90s BAFTA were given 2 or even 3 months after the Oscar ceremony. Loved the video of course.
This was a great year!! I wish Ed Wood was nominated for best picture it’s Tim Burton’s best film IMO. I also love that Priscilla won Costume design such an inspired pick!
Wayyyy too obscure for the Oscars. We’re talking about a film that’s about a really awful old timey director that was given the worst film ever title. Only cinephiles would care about that
Fun fact: John Travolta was originally offered the role of Forrest Gump.... he turned it down in order to do Pulp Fiction. Then he had to watch Tom Hanks win an Oscar for that role.
I think 2020 was better then 2019 personally interns of best picture nominees. But 2019 overall was a great year for films though I feel it’s a bit too early to say
@@notchuckproductions5029 2020 was better than I expected it to be, but I still stand by 2019 as I felt there were a wider range of films, but anyway it's just my opinion
@Wong Kar-Chazelle Every year has it's instant classics too. and Out sides Moonlight and The Handmaiden. I think they will become mostly forgotten out side of there genres and hard core cinephile (or in the case of La la land will likely counutie to become controversial film everyone hates on). Look these movies are still new, and it's hard too know how much staying power they will have. I can't picture that many cinephiles in 20 yaers discorving The Lobster or Manchester by the Sea, nor do I see them being in the national film registry. (Hell I haven't even thought of Manchester by the sea and The Lobster since 2017) I may be wrong, But every year has great movies, but most great movies don't become classics.
@Wong Kar-Chazelle I never said 2020 had abunch of classics, I just felt 2020 had the best picture line up. As for 2019, I predict Endgame, Klaus, Parasite, Joker, Uncut gems, and maybe Little women, and Jojo rabbit, Poriat of a lady on fire , and Cats, . To remain the film continuous in 20 years. though you never know
Can you do the 1995 Oscars retrospective where “Braveheart” became the first Best Picture winner that lost the 4 major precursors?? (I really enjoy these retrospectives btw)
To be fair, Lugosi was offered the Monster role but turned it down. He did eventually play the role in “Frankenstein meets the Wolfman” (1943), opposite Lon Chaney Jr. who also played the role in “Ghost of Frankenstein” (1942).
I have always though that if these Oscars were held today, Shawshank Redemption would win Best Picture and Tarantino would win Best Director in a split.
I think it would be Pulp fiction would win Picture, director, screenplay, Editing, supporting actress while Shawshank would win Adapted screenplay, Cinematography, With Forest Gump Actor Visual effects, and sound. Though I could see them giving Hoop Dreams getting Editing over Pulp fiction to redeem it from not being nominated best documentary(not mention the editing is great in it)
Would love to see the retrospective of the epic 2003 eleven Oscar sweep from The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Don’t think we’ll see that again anytime soon, especially with a big budget fantasy blockbuster.
so the documentary category has been one big fuckery ever since. That's good to know. Year after year that seems to be a completely unpredictable category. Maybe that would make for an interesting video. Why is the documentary category so weird.
Because the Documentary branch members do what they want, including be contrarian and snub the populist favorite(s) in most years, and they know they can get away with it because people in general don’t care enough about documentaries.
as much as I love Quiz show, I would have voted for Pulp fiction, I would have said "Pulp fiction may not be my favorite its objectively the most culturally and aesthetically significant film of the year Of he year
Man, I just adore Shawshank. I notice something new with every viewing and it makes it incredibly rewatchable. A well written, tight script, superb acting performances, a simple but powerful message and beautiful sound design. I don't think it will ever fall out of my top 10 favourites list
I think The Lion King had a genuine chance of getting in, since Beauty and the Beast got in 3 years earlier - becoming the first animated film to do so. Also, TLK was hugely successful financially, and they often shoehorned in those types of films for Best Picture, which is the only reason Four Weddings and a Funeral got in.
@@dj71162 Not to be cynical but,I firmly believe the only reason Beauty and the Beast got a best picture , is because 1991 was a weak year for movies, and it got in because Thelma and Louise and boys n the hood split the vote giving Beauty and the Beast in in .
Citizen Kane was never going to win, it was a incredibly controversial film at the time of it's release, and is famously the only film in history to get booed, when it announced it had won an Oscar. and really didn't get respect until it was impronarted to France after WW2. Same for Maltese Falcon, Noir believe it or not was considered Low brow entreatment at the time, and I believe Maltese Falcon was kind of like a "Mad Max furry road" or "Black Panter" were it was genre the acmdey dosen't care much for, that was so exceptionally good that they had to nominate it. Also helped their were 10 nominees that year
@@jgil1966 Really ? Herd mixed things. Even still Citizen Kane is still one of the most influential and groundbreaking films in cinema history. Though John Ford makes some great shit and this sounds good
1994 is a great year , forest gump, pulp fiction and Shawasank redemption ,Leon , Chungking express ( outside Hollywood) etc and the quiz show by Robert Redford ( it's really underrated)
1994 is one of the greatest years for films. Forrest Gump is my favorite movie of all time, Pulp Fiction is in my Top 10, The Lion King not only in my Top 10 but my favorite animated film and The Shawshank Redemption would be in my Top 20.
It was also one the worst too with Never-ending story 3, It's Pat the Movie(Witch Tarantio has an uncredited writing credit to btw),A troll in central park, North, Milk money, The Flintstones,Richie rich, getting even with dad, Car 54 were are you?,On Deadly ground.Blank check,In the Army now. Every Year is the greatest yaer for movies and the worst.
@@cepho8349 : Well some years seem to have the good outweigh the bad more than others. 1993 is considered a great year, and Roger Ebert even marveled at the amount of positive reviews he'd given. It's based on your perspective. It is true that every year we see good and bad films, but that doesn't mean a year can't stand out.
@@bryanismyname7583 It's always a matter of perspective. Most people have very little knowledge when it comes to cinema. There are years with many good popular mainstream movies (such as 1994), but that doesn't automatically make them superior to years with fewer good mainstream movies. Each and every year there are great movies being made all around the world. In fact the vast majority of great movies tends to get overlooked. Especially when you look at anything beyond Hollywood. When people complain about a certain year's cinematic output they simply have to look more closely for the good stuff.
@@cepho8349 : I agree up to a point. Yes, it is true that good films are made all over the world and many people unfairly ignore a lot of them, but at the same time it is understandable that the vast majority of audiences are going to watch the most accessible movies. Many people, even intelligent ones, don't watch subtitled films. Being hearing-impaired, I have been used to watching with subtitles from an early age whenever possible (though theater speakers are usually loud enough that I don't need to), but some people find it too distracting. And even if they didn't need subtitles, some of those films would probably still be overlooked just because they have different cultural nuances. It's sad, because they miss out on some great cinema, but at the same time it is understandable that people want to watch movies they identify with and that they don't necessarily have to do a lot of heavy lifting. They see it as a chore to watch international films or even, in some cases, local independent films due to heavy subject matter or other reasons. But by the same token, just because it's not from Hollywood doesn't make it good either. One thing that happens is that even Americans or Western World citizens that do watch those films only receive access to a small percentage of the films made around the world so we aren't necessarily seeing the bad ones as often because it's harder to access. All of this is to say that there can be a consensus that a particular year is more impressive than another based on the output, but there's no concrete statement that you have to agree. I think 1994 was a very good year for commercial fare, but other years may be just as good or better. I think 1995 is a great year (in fact the letter half of the '90s was a terrific time to be young and watching movies... I was still in high school in 1994 and 1995)!
I admire Pulp Fiction, and I really enjoyed Gump and Shawshank (haven't seen either in years). Quiz Show is fine. But if I were to sit down and watch one of these Best Picture nominees right now, it would be Four Weddings and Funeral. It's not particularly noteworthy from a filmmaking standpoint, but it's a solid British romcom and one of the better comedies period nominated in the last few decades.
RED was my favorite film of that year and it would be on my top 10 of the decade. I really loved it as I usually do have that feeling about Kieslowski’s films. And yes, Hoop Dreams getting snubbed in Documentary was atrocious when it actually was worthy to be considered in Best Picture.
The Oscar Expert, as much as I love him, I can tell isn't as knowlgble into the classics, Even still though, Everyone knows Bella Lugosi, is Dracula, and even if you didn't they mention it a lot in Ed wood, Its even played as a joke with his character introduction
1994 was a stacked year. Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, and Shawshank Redemption all going for the prize. Four Weddings and A Funeral is a classic too but that and Quiz Show were kinda the nominees who were just happy to be there.
I honestly feel pretty similarly about Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction. What works about them is absolutely stellar, and certain scenes and characters definitely live up to the hype. However, there’s also parts of both movies I don’t love, Forrest Gump can get pretty unfocused and the voice Hanks puts on took a while for me to get used to. With Pulp Fiction, I adore John Travolta, Uma Thurman and Samuel L. Jackson’s characters, but when they aren’t on screen I feel the movie falls a little flat. However, The Shawshank Redemption is what I’d consider a perfect movie. Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins both give incredible performances, the cinematography is just insane, and the ending is one of the most satisfying in film history. It’d easily be my pick for the Oscar this year.
Interesting that people continue to suggest that Travolta isn't really the lead in Pulp Fiction. Worth a rewatch because it's pretty obvious that he is. He is present in the diner sequence, the Vincent-Mia sequence, and the Mr Wolf sequence. He's the only character in the film that has that level of presence. Sam Jackson is in the opener but then doesn't appear again until the Wolf sequence. Between the opening and the Wolf sequence, Vincent (Travolta) has this whole "act" with Uma Thurman. There is one lead performance in Pulp Fiction, and one only. And it's clearly Travolta. We can screen count it too, but on narrative alone - it's clear cut. Also, minor points, if you're calling yourself Oscar "Expert" to can't say John Toll won his second Oscar this year - he won his first and the second came the next year for "Braveheart". Neverthleess, I love your commentary and how engaged and excited you are about films and how they're awarded. Fantastic stuff.
you hit the nail on the head - if you weren't there when Pulp Fiction came out then you have no idea at all. What that movie did - you came away energised and thrilled and entertained. But yes, America loves an underdog, a simpleton who rises above, despite the odds. US audiences didn't have to think too hard while watching Gump, but they did for Pulp Fiction so no surprises come Oscar night. Original Screenplay is the award given to the film which should, but will not, win Best Picture. It is and always has been, the consolation prize.
I would've had more faith in society if Three Colors: Red somehow got nominated for Best Picture. Nonetheless, this Oscars were low-key a fucking mess.
How is it weird The Mask was in for Art Direction? It’s held up tremendously. The snobbery jumped out because do you know how hard it is to combine live action and cartoon and have it age well decades later???
I think he was saying it was too goofy for him. I enjoyed the movie and the effects were impressive at the time. Too bad the category only had 3 nominees all those years.
I'd love to see you guys cover the 85th Academy Awards for 2012. There were a plethora of interesting snubs and nominations (Amour overperforming, Zeitlin in Director, Affleck snubbed for Director, how/why the Academy went for Argo in Best Picture, etc).
God damn 1994 is considered by many including myself and even an early years one of the best if not the best years of Cinema 1939 1982 1999 also but 1994 was a great year for films even the worst 94 is better than most years then again you got North
and I agree Travolta was probably supporting but supposedly the rationale was that he was the only actor in all the different storyline threads in the movie, including with Bruce Willis.
Its a shame that they had so many overlaps with release dates back then. It makes it difficult to include in retrospectives. For example, Dances with Wolves and The Silence of the Lambs being nominated in the same year, despite winning the Oscar in different years.
@@blondie666 Not mention I believe he has the most lines in the film(witch is a factor they often use to determine who's supporting who's not), Personally I consider Travolta and Jackson duel lead, as the majorty of the film is told from their perspectives, and are the ones who go through an arc . Plus they have the most inonic and memorable secnes. Though I guess the majorty of the film is told through Vicnents prospective, so sure he's lead.
This was a fantastic video! Made my day! I’d love to see a retrospective on the 2015 Oscars. Birdman vs Boyhood, Michael Keaton somehow losing to Eddie Redmayne, the J. K. Simmons win, Julianne Moore finally winning, and the tragic Lego Movie snub. Also 1998 and 2004 would be cool just to see you cover a year with massive sweeps
No offense, but Michael Keaton “somehow” losing to Eddie Redmayne? Eddie won all of the precursors except for Critics Choice, so it shouldn’t have been that surprising when he won
If you would like to know more about the best actress category I would really recommend you watch a video about Jessica Lange’s win by a channel called Be Kind Rewind it is very interesting and made a lot of great points
Quiz show is proof not all Oscar bait is bad! It love the way the film and the corruption and evil of the entertainment industry, as well as the dangers of Celebrity, but in such an understudble, and relatable way.
oscar bait is merely a description of a film, not a statement on it's quality plus the idea that making a film to appeal to the Oscars and quality are mutually exclusive is weird.
I think Hugh Grant won BAFTA partly because he’d been around a while (see Merchant-Ivory classic “Maurice,” 1987) and this was his breakthrough box-office hit. At the time I loved “Legends of the Fall” and “Ed Wood.” Both could’ve gotten more nods.
@@a1t3rmusic : Yes he and James Wilby shared the Vulpi Cup for best actor at the Venice Film Festival. A shame the Oscars ignored the film (except for the costumes), probably due to the subject of the story. Good book by E.M. Forster, too, if you haven't read it.
1994 is one of my favourite years in cinema history. I‘ve watched the major ones multiple times. But the Oscar would have gone to The Shawshank Redemption if it was for me to decide.
snubees… this should be it’s own category of critics. have to watch & rewatch your videos, you have so much info,it’s fascinating but my brain cannot process all that data as it is given. but i love it👍🏼
for me, I would trade quiz show and four weddings for Red and Lion king. Could lion king be nominated for Editing and Sound because I thought it was impressive in these categories.
Would love to see you guys do a retrospective for 1989 movies and your thoughts on that year. Driving miss daisy won best picture and has not really aged well. Just discovered you guys and honestly thought I was alone in my enthusiasm for the Oscars and it was slowly dying over the years. You just helped revamp that enthusiasm again. You guys are awesome!
1 snub for me would definitely be The Lion King for Best Picture and The Shawshank Redemption should’ve been Roger Deakins first cinematography win before Blade Runner 2049.
To be fair John Toll's work on "Legends of the Fall," and the next year on his second winning film, "Braveheart," was stunning. Personally I wish Stefan Czapsky had been nominated (and won) for "Ed Wood." Such gorgeous photography in that film!
I find it pretty weird how Red received 3 nomination but White couldn't even get a nomination in foreign language film category. And yes, White was eligible, it was submitted by Poland that year and the submission was accepted.
@@cepho8349 : Did not realize that. The Oscars has always been weird about Foreign Films and Documentaries. So many worthy films aren't nominated due to crazy rules. I know it is hard to watch every film out there, but the whole committee thing and the submission process is odd. Even with numerous changes over the years, they always manage to mess things up in those categories.
*If I Got to Nominate for Best Picture 1994:* (1 condition: real-life winner must be included) - _Forrest Gump_ _Hoop Dreams_ _The Lion King_ _Pulp Fiction_ _The Shawshank Redemption_
Really enjoying these Oscar perspectives! Can't wait for more ☺️
The 2002 oscars might be a good next one... another pic/director split, Adrien brody win, a big night for miramax and ofc Michael Moore.
Retrospectives and Live Oscar Reactions are probably my favorites. You guys offer such a fresh perspective on how things didn't just happen out of nowhere. Great work!
Should we talk about BAFTA here? It wasn't an Oscar precursor until 2001. In the 90s BAFTA were given 2 or even 3 months after the Oscar ceremony. Loved the video of course.
This was a great year!! I wish Ed Wood was nominated for best picture it’s Tim Burton’s best film IMO. I also love that Priscilla won Costume design such an inspired pick!
Wayyyy too obscure for the Oscars. We’re talking about a film that’s about a really awful old timey director that was given the worst film ever title. Only cinephiles would care about that
Fun fact: John Travolta was originally offered the role of Forrest Gump.... he turned it down in order to do Pulp Fiction. Then he had to watch Tom Hanks win an Oscar for that role.
1994 and 2019 were my favorite years in film / Oscars. All the lineups were really interesting
I think 2020 was better then 2019 personally interns of best picture nominees.
But 2019 overall was a great year for films though I feel it’s a bit too early to say
@@notchuckproductions5029 2020 was better than I expected it to be, but I still stand by 2019 as I felt there were a wider range of films, but anyway it's just my opinion
@Wong Kar-Chazelle Half of those aren't classics though, Every year is a great year for movies really.
@Wong Kar-Chazelle Every year has it's instant classics too. and Out sides Moonlight and The Handmaiden. I think they will become mostly forgotten out side of there genres and hard core cinephile (or in the case of La la land will likely counutie to become controversial film everyone hates on). Look these movies are still new, and it's hard too know how much staying power they will have. I can't picture that many cinephiles in 20 yaers discorving The Lobster or Manchester by the Sea, nor do I see them being in the national film registry. (Hell I haven't even thought of Manchester by the sea and The Lobster since 2017) I may be wrong, But every year has great movies, but most great movies don't become classics.
@Wong Kar-Chazelle I never said 2020 had abunch of classics, I just felt 2020 had the best picture line up. As for 2019, I predict Endgame, Klaus, Parasite, Joker, Uncut gems, and maybe Little women, and Jojo rabbit, Poriat of a lady on fire , and Cats, . To remain the film continuous in 20 years. though you never know
Can you do the 1995 Oscars retrospective where “Braveheart” became the first Best Picture winner that lost the 4 major precursors??
(I really enjoy these retrospectives btw)
This was also the first year of the Critics Choice Awards too! So this was the first year of having 4 major precursors
Bela Lugosi was Dracula not Frankenstein and Nobody's Fool was Newman's eighth nomination. Loved the video. Hoop Dreams story was interesting
To be fair, Lugosi was offered the Monster role but turned it down. He did eventually play the role in “Frankenstein meets the Wolfman” (1943), opposite Lon Chaney Jr. who also played the role in “Ghost of Frankenstein” (1942).
agh yeah I meant to say Dracula but my brain just said "frankenstein" and thought that was the same thing.
One of the best years for film ever! Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction & Forrest Gump are some of my favorites, all would have deserved Best Picture.
So happy to see these back! Hope for more in the near future
Omg I really wanted this! Tysm!! Maybe the year Million Dollar Baby?
Yesssss nobody talks about this year but Million Dollar Baby beat The Aviator and Sideways while winning zero BP precursors!!!
@@jdgg544 Just like Parasite, 1917, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Ah yes another year where Scorsese was blocked from Best Picture (until the next year!)
Honestly, I perfer Million Dollar Baby
Big was Tom Hanks’ first nomination I think
I have always though that if these Oscars were held today, Shawshank Redemption would win Best Picture and Tarantino would win Best Director in a split.
I think it would be Pulp fiction would win Picture, director, screenplay, Editing, supporting actress while Shawshank would win Adapted screenplay, Cinematography, With Forest Gump Actor Visual effects, and sound. Though I could see them giving Hoop Dreams getting Editing over Pulp fiction to redeem it from not being nominated best documentary(not mention the editing is great in it)
@@notchuckproductions5029 Dude, Shawshank would easily win with the preferential ballot.
Would love to see the retrospective of the epic 2003 eleven Oscar sweep from The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Don’t think we’ll see that again anytime soon, especially with a big budget fantasy blockbuster.
so the documentary category has been one big fuckery ever since. That's good to know. Year after year that seems to be a completely unpredictable category.
Maybe that would make for an interesting video. Why is the documentary category so weird.
Because the Documentary branch members do what they want, including be contrarian and snub the populist favorite(s) in most years, and they know they can get away with it because people in general don’t care enough about documentaries.
No brother bro 😢
I would have given Quiz Show the Best Picture Oscar.
as much as I love Quiz show, I would have voted for Pulp fiction, I would have said "Pulp fiction may not be my favorite its objectively the most culturally and aesthetically significant film of the year
Of he year
Man, I just adore Shawshank. I notice something new with every viewing and it makes it incredibly rewatchable. A well written, tight script, superb acting performances, a simple but powerful message and beautiful sound design. I don't think it will ever fall out of my top 10 favourites list
I miss Brother Bro but I'm hyped as hell for this retrospective
same where the heck was he?
where is brother bro
1994 was my favorite year for film. Also, I think The Lion King should have been nominated for Best Picture and should have won Best Picture.
2014 is 100% better!
I think The Lion King had a genuine chance of getting in, since Beauty and the Beast got in 3 years earlier - becoming the first animated film to do so. Also, TLK was hugely successful financially, and they often shoehorned in those types of films for Best Picture, which is the only reason Four Weddings and a Funeral got in.
i agree honestly
The Lion King winning would have been really cool
@@dj71162 Not to be cynical but,I firmly believe the only reason Beauty and the Beast got a best picture , is because 1991 was a weak year for movies, and it got in because Thelma and Louise and boys n the hood split the vote giving Beauty and the Beast in in .
So happy your doing more of these! You should do 1941 next with the crazy How Green is My Valley upset over Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon.
Citizen Kane was never going to win, it was a incredibly controversial film at the time of it's release, and is famously the only film in history to get booed, when it announced it had won an Oscar. and really didn't get respect until it was impronarted to France after WW2. Same for Maltese Falcon, Noir believe it or not was considered Low brow entreatment at the time, and I believe Maltese Falcon was kind of like a "Mad Max furry road" or "Black Panter" were it was genre the acmdey dosen't care much for, that was so exceptionally good that they had to nominate it. Also helped their were 10 nominees that year
Having ACTUALLY watched How Green Is My Valley now... I believe it's the better film and one of my favorite movies of all time...
@@jgil1966 Really ? Herd mixed things. Even still Citizen Kane is still one of the most influential and groundbreaking films in cinema history. Though John Ford makes some great shit and this sounds good
@@notchuckproductions5029 I'd watch "Mad Max: Furry Road"
I can’t express how much time I waited for this. Please keep these retrospectives coming!
Natalie Portman and Gary Oldman should have won for Leon The Professional!
Oh yes!! Retrospectives are back
1994 is a great year , forest gump, pulp fiction and Shawasank redemption ,Leon , Chungking express ( outside Hollywood) etc and the quiz show by Robert Redford ( it's really underrated)
1994 is one of the greatest years for films. Forrest Gump is my favorite movie of all time, Pulp Fiction is in my Top 10, The Lion King not only in my Top 10 but my favorite animated film and The Shawshank Redemption would be in my Top 20.
It was also one the worst too with Never-ending story 3, It's Pat the Movie(Witch Tarantio has an uncredited writing credit to btw),A troll in central park, North, Milk money, The Flintstones,Richie rich, getting even with dad, Car 54 were are you?,On Deadly ground.Blank check,In the Army now.
Every Year is the greatest yaer for movies and the worst.
@@notchuckproductions5029 Yeah, exactly. These comments are stupid. Every year is a good (or bad) year for cinema.
@@cepho8349 : Well some years seem to have the good outweigh the bad more than others. 1993 is considered a great year, and Roger Ebert even marveled at the amount of positive reviews he'd given. It's based on your perspective. It is true that every year we see good and bad films, but that doesn't mean a year can't stand out.
@@bryanismyname7583 It's always a matter of perspective. Most people have very little knowledge when it comes to cinema. There are years with many good popular mainstream movies (such as 1994), but that doesn't automatically make them superior to years with fewer good mainstream movies. Each and every year there are great movies being made all around the world. In fact the vast majority of great movies tends to get overlooked. Especially when you look at anything beyond Hollywood. When people complain about a certain year's cinematic output they simply have to look more closely for the good stuff.
@@cepho8349 : I agree up to a point. Yes, it is true that good films are made all over the world and many people unfairly ignore a lot of them, but at the same time it is understandable that the vast majority of audiences are going to watch the most accessible movies.
Many people, even intelligent ones, don't watch subtitled films. Being hearing-impaired, I have been used to watching with subtitles from an early age whenever possible (though theater speakers are usually loud enough that I don't need to), but some people find it too distracting. And even if they didn't need subtitles, some of those films would probably still be overlooked just because they have different cultural nuances. It's sad, because they miss out on some great cinema, but at the same time it is understandable that people want to watch movies they identify with and that they don't necessarily have to do a lot of heavy lifting.
They see it as a chore to watch international films or even, in some cases, local independent films due to heavy subject matter or other reasons. But by the same token, just because it's not from Hollywood doesn't make it good either. One thing that happens is that even Americans or Western World citizens that do watch those films only receive access to a small percentage of the films made around the world so we aren't necessarily seeing the bad ones as often because it's harder to access.
All of this is to say that there can be a consensus that a particular year is more impressive than another based on the output, but there's no concrete statement that you have to agree. I think 1994 was a very good year for commercial fare, but other years may be just as good or better. I think 1995 is a great year (in fact the letter half of the '90s was a terrific time to be young and watching movies... I was still in high school in 1994 and 1995)!
Happy to see these back! Such as great idea for your videos!
Funny hearing an American say words wrong, big up Priscilla
Great job! This year's Academy Awards was definitely divisive, to say the least.
I admire Pulp Fiction, and I really enjoyed Gump and Shawshank (haven't seen either in years). Quiz Show is fine. But if I were to sit down and watch one of these Best Picture nominees right now, it would be Four Weddings and Funeral. It's not particularly noteworthy from a filmmaking standpoint, but it's a solid British romcom and one of the better comedies period nominated in the last few decades.
Pretty sure this is the only time where they had an opportunity to nominate Streep and didn’t
Next 2012 Oscars
My goodness, that Best Actress lineup is just embarrassing.
The single r in Forrest Gump is really bothering me lol
RED was my favorite film of that year and it would be on my top 10 of the decade. I really loved it as I usually do have that feeling about Kieslowski’s films.
And yes, Hoop Dreams getting snubbed in Documentary was atrocious when it actually was worthy to be considered in Best Picture.
Been looking forward to more retrospectives! Thanks oscar expert!
“actor who originally played Frankenstein”
cringe
The Oscar Expert, as much as I love him, I can tell isn't as knowlgble into the classics, Even still though, Everyone knows Bella Lugosi, is Dracula, and even if you didn't they mention it a lot in Ed wood, Its even played as a joke with his character introduction
Bela Lugosi didn't play Frankenstein. He played Dracula. Frankenstein was Karloff.
sad that the Oscars waited until 2002 to add an Animated category.
The Lion King would've won if they had that category back in the 90s.
Yesssss I've always loved your retrospective content!
Great video, I would love to see a Retrospective for either 2001, 2002, or 2004
1994 was a stacked year. Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, and Shawshank Redemption all going for the prize. Four Weddings and A Funeral is a classic too but that and Quiz Show were kinda the nominees who were just happy to be there.
05. Four weddings and a funeral 9/10
04. Quiz show 9/10
03. Shawshank redemption 10/10
02. Forrest Gump 10/10
01. Pulp fiction 10/10 (my favorite movie)
Forrest Gump was Hanks’s third nomination, not his second. Nominated for Big in 1989.
I honestly feel pretty similarly about Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction. What works about them is absolutely stellar, and certain scenes and characters definitely live up to the hype. However, there’s also parts of both movies I don’t love, Forrest Gump can get pretty unfocused and the voice Hanks puts on took a while for me to get used to. With Pulp Fiction, I adore John Travolta, Uma Thurman and Samuel L. Jackson’s characters, but when they aren’t on screen I feel the movie falls a little flat. However, The Shawshank Redemption is what I’d consider a perfect movie. Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins both give incredible performances, the cinematography is just insane, and the ending is one of the most satisfying in film history. It’d easily be my pick for the Oscar this year.
Interesting that people continue to suggest that Travolta isn't really the lead in Pulp Fiction. Worth a rewatch because it's pretty obvious that he is. He is present in the diner sequence, the Vincent-Mia sequence, and the Mr Wolf sequence. He's the only character in the film that has that level of presence. Sam Jackson is in the opener but then doesn't appear again until the Wolf sequence. Between the opening and the Wolf sequence, Vincent (Travolta) has this whole "act" with Uma Thurman. There is one lead performance in Pulp Fiction, and one only. And it's clearly Travolta. We can screen count it too, but on narrative alone - it's clear cut.
Also, minor points, if you're calling yourself Oscar "Expert" to can't say John Toll won his second Oscar this year - he won his first and the second came the next year for "Braveheart". Neverthleess, I love your commentary and how engaged and excited you are about films and how they're awarded. Fantastic stuff.
Brother Bro :(
you hit the nail on the head - if you weren't there when Pulp Fiction came out then you have no idea at all. What that movie did - you came away energised and thrilled and entertained. But yes, America loves an underdog, a simpleton who rises above, despite the odds. US audiences didn't have to think too hard while watching Gump, but they did for Pulp Fiction so no surprises come Oscar night. Original Screenplay is the award given to the film which should, but will not, win Best Picture. It is and always has been, the consolation prize.
I would've had more faith in society if Three Colors: Red somehow got nominated for Best Picture. Nonetheless, this Oscars were low-key a fucking mess.
How is it weird The Mask was in for Art Direction? It’s held up tremendously. The snobbery jumped out because do you know how hard it is to combine live action and cartoon and have it age well decades later???
I think he was saying it was too goofy for him. I enjoyed the movie and the effects were impressive at the time. Too bad the category only had 3 nominees all those years.
Nobody’s Fool was Newmans 8th nomination. His 9th was for The Road To Perdition
Hey there Oscar Expert, you know of course that “Forrest Gump” is WAY over rated, and had a mega PR campaign months before it hit screens.
I'd love to see you guys cover the 85th Academy Awards for 2012. There were a plethora of interesting snubs and nominations (Amour overperforming, Zeitlin in Director, Affleck snubbed for Director, how/why the Academy went for Argo in Best Picture, etc).
God damn 1994 is considered by many including myself and even an early years one of the best if not the best years of Cinema 1939 1982 1999 also but 1994 was a great year for films even the worst 94 is better than most years then again you got North
And lion king also one of my favourites animated film
Please do retrospective in the year 1974, where Gena Rowlands was robbed of Best Actress oscar
this year was really interesting with all the picks they made huh
Tom Hanks' first nomination was for BIG, not PHILADELPHIA.
BAFTA used to happen after the Oscars (until like 1999 I think), so that's why they often did their own thing those days compared to AMPAS.
and I agree Travolta was probably supporting but supposedly the rationale was that he was the only actor in all the different storyline threads in the movie, including with Bruce Willis.
Its a shame that they had so many overlaps with release dates back then. It makes it difficult to include in retrospectives. For example, Dances with Wolves and The Silence of the Lambs being nominated in the same year, despite winning the Oscar in different years.
@@blondie666 Not mention I believe he has the most lines in the film(witch is a factor they often use to determine who's supporting who's not), Personally I consider Travolta and Jackson duel lead, as the majorty of the film is told from their perspectives, and are the ones who go through an arc . Plus they have the most inonic and memorable secnes. Though I guess the majorty of the film is told through Vicnents prospective, so sure he's lead.
suggesting black and white movies are more likely to get a cinematography nomination seems a little trivial
The song “It Can’t Rain All the Time” and other technical craft efforts from _The Crow_ should’ve contended.
This was a fantastic video! Made my day! I’d love to see a retrospective on the 2015 Oscars. Birdman vs Boyhood, Michael Keaton somehow losing to Eddie Redmayne, the J. K. Simmons win, Julianne Moore finally winning, and the tragic Lego Movie snub. Also 1998 and 2004 would be cool just to see you cover a year with massive sweeps
No offense, but Michael Keaton “somehow” losing to Eddie Redmayne? Eddie won all of the precursors except for Critics Choice, so it shouldn’t have been that surprising when he won
@@seankoontz4235 Actually Eddie Redmayne lost the critics choice to Michael Keaton.
@Richie Rich That’s what I mean, he won everything except for Critics Choice
If you would like to know more about the best actress category I would really recommend you watch a video about Jessica Lange’s win by a channel called Be Kind Rewind it is very interesting and made a lot of great points
Be Kind Rewind, actually. It's a great site...
@@rangergrrrl it is. Btw thank you for letting me know, I hadn’t realized I misspelled it lol
@@irvinggonzaleza You're very welcome. I see you've already fixed it. God bless UA-cam...!
@@rangergrrrl amen
Man that was a famously horrible year for Best Actress.
I forgot how many good movies came out in 1994!
Quiz show is proof not all Oscar bait is bad! It love the way the film and the corruption and evil of the entertainment industry, as well as the dangers of Celebrity, but in such an understudble, and relatable way.
oscar bait is merely a description of a film, not a statement on it's quality
plus the idea that making a film to appeal to the Oscars and quality are mutually exclusive is weird.
@@a1t3rmusic I know
Oh yes I love these.
Martin Landau plays Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood. Bela Lugosi played Dracula in the 30s. Boris Karloff played Frankenstein
yah it's werid that he would mix that up, as his character introduction, is gag character interodcion, of him in a coffin a sleep like Dracula
I love these retrospectives SO much, more of these pelase??
I think Hugh Grant won BAFTA partly because he’d been around a while (see Merchant-Ivory classic “Maurice,” 1987) and this was his breakthrough box-office hit.
At the time I loved “Legends of the Fall” and “Ed Wood.” Both could’ve gotten more nods.
he was really good in Maurice🤧❤
@@a1t3rmusic : Yes he and James Wilby shared the Vulpi Cup for best actor at the Venice Film Festival. A shame the Oscars ignored the film (except for the costumes), probably due to the subject of the story. Good book by E.M. Forster, too, if you haven't read it.
Never, ever say "entertainment as shit" to any movie unless it was a horrible movie!
Interesting choices in pronouncing Priscilla, Gary Sinise, and Wyatt Earpp.
1994 is one of my favourite years in cinema history. I‘ve watched the major ones multiple times. But the Oscar would have gone to The Shawshank Redemption if it was for me to decide.
Yes! I missed these! More please!
snubees… this should be it’s own category of critics. have to watch & rewatch your videos, you have so much info,it’s fascinating but my brain cannot process all that data as it is given. but i love it👍🏼
for me, I would trade quiz show and four weddings for Red and Lion king. Could lion king be nominated for Editing and Sound because I thought it was impressive in these categories.
Do the years where Titanic and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King won! It would also be cool if you eventually did all the Oscar years
Martin Landau played Bela Lugosi who played Dracula , not frankenstien
is crazy to think tarantino lost the director award that year to a movie like forrest gump
Other years to look at:
1946 - Best Years of Our Lives vs. It's a Wonderful Life
1965 - Sound of Music vs. Doctor Zhivago
17:50 Correction, Philadelphia wasn't Tom Hanks first nomination for Lead Actor - that was actually Big (1988).
17:52
Second nom, the fisrt was Big, I think in 1988 o 89.
“Circle of Life” should’ve won Best Original Song instead of “Can You Feel the Love Tonight”.
In my opinion Deakins was snubbed in cinematography category
Bela Lugosi was Dracula, not Frankenstein.
Would love to see you guys do a retrospective for 1989 movies and your thoughts on that year. Driving miss daisy won best picture and has not really aged well. Just discovered you guys and honestly thought I was alone in my enthusiasm for the Oscars and it was slowly dying over the years. You just helped revamp that enthusiasm again. You guys are awesome!
Also Fun Fact: At the time I believe half the films nominated were owned Miramax at the time too.
Do a retrospective for 2000 oscars. 1999 year for films.
I really, really, really don’t like Forrest Gump.
Yes more of this please
And Shawshank Redemption should win this
Where is Brotha bra. this is not acceptable at all!!!!!!!!
1 snub for me would definitely be The Lion King for Best Picture and The Shawshank Redemption should’ve been Roger Deakins first cinematography win before Blade Runner 2049.
To be fair John Toll's work on "Legends of the Fall," and the next year on his second winning film, "Braveheart," was stunning. Personally I wish Stefan Czapsky had been nominated (and won) for "Ed Wood." Such gorgeous photography in that film!
Wow! Shawshank was truly robbed !
I love these! and I dont think there's a forest gump inside of me
I find it pretty weird how Red received 3 nomination but White couldn't even get a nomination in foreign language film category. And yes, White was eligible, it was submitted by Poland that year and the submission was accepted.
Well, Red was seen as the best film in the trilogy and the culmination of everything preceding it.
You answered your own question. "White" was submitted instead of "Red."
@@bryanismyname7583 Red was submitted by Switzerland and subsequently disqualified.
@@cepho8349 : Did not realize that. The Oscars has always been weird about Foreign Films and Documentaries. So many worthy films aren't nominated due to crazy rules. I know it is hard to watch every film out there, but the whole committee thing and the submission process is odd. Even with numerous changes over the years, they always manage to mess things up in those categories.
@@bryanismyname7583 Yeah, this category has always been pretty inconsistent in the rule enforcement.
Bella Lugosi played Dracula...
Next needs to be the Million Dollar baby year
*If I Got to Nominate for Best Picture 1994:*
(1 condition: real-life winner must be included)
-
_Forrest Gump_
_Hoop Dreams_
_The Lion King_
_Pulp Fiction_
_The Shawshank Redemption_
Mine:
(no condition)
"Bullets Over Broadway"
"Ed Wood"
"Interview with the Vampire"
"Legends of the Fall" (WINNER)
"The Shawshank Redemption"
Yesss been waiting for this type of videos for over a year