Undeserved Best Picture Wins

The King and I is hands down way better than Around the World in Eighty Days.

So isn't that an undeserved loss?

__________________
I destroyed the dastardly dairy dame! I made mad milk maid mulch!

I hate insomnia. Oh yeah. Last year I had four cases of it, and each time it lasted three months.

Cavalcade is by far the worst best picture winner and the least deserving.

Also, Marty and Tom Jones were undeserving winners.

Brynner won for best actor which also bothers me

I love old movies and old westerns but Cavalcade just wasn't good.

(Around the World in Eighty Days)
Giant or The Ten Commandments would have been better choices.

There was a time when i, like many film geeks, was all-in on Nolan, but that cooled off after the world class bad writing of Dark Knight Rises.

Inception is fun, but it's definitely a gimmicky movie that relies heavily upon its special effects and dynamite cast, rather than dialog and story.

Maybe I was thinking of that one. I know there's one I didn't understand how it won at all. It was just awful. It does make me wonder if its competition just sucked that year or if there was some politicking or just what.

For me it cooled off after a second or third viewing of Dark Knight and the first viewing of Inception. Inception is a nice idea, except it was pulled off really poorly, which happens a lot with Nolan. He can't write dialogue at all. The only films from Christopher Nolan I like are Batman Begins and Prestige, which aren't that great, and the latter he didn't write on his own. Yes I recognize mine is a minority opinion and I will not waver from it.

Tom Jones was like a clean version of Midnight Cowboy.

Cavalcade went up against some really good movies in 1932/33.


* I have to retract my comments saying it wasn't good, I had it confused with Cimarron which won two years earlier. I don't believe I've seen Cavalcade.

I double checked. We each had them confused. Cimarron is the boring Western that I can't understand its victory. To be fair, I found Cavalcade mediocre as well. However, as a Best Picture, it's better than Cimarron.

Back in like 2012 I made it an aim to see every Best Picture winner, and I kept up with until about 2018 and I haven't seen a handful of the past six or seven winners. I've seen all of the rest though. Most of them are pretty good, although there are a few clunkers. I've seen all but four of them; Shape of Water, Nomadland, Everything Everywhere All at Once, and Oppenheimer.

Part of the reason I firmly believe I don't like some of the Best Pictures is they were products of their time and I needed to watch them when they came out to appreciate them. That doesn't mean they can't be good now of course. I just have to recognize I'm not the target audience.

Cavalcade is not great, but it's not awful. However, I haven't seen any of the other films it went against. Cimarron, on the other hand, is on my bottom 3 of Best Picture winners.

__________________

I'm guessing that the reason Cimarron won is Hollywood and the Academy did not like the millionaire upstart, Howard Hughes as his film, The Front Page was crackingly good and popular at the time. Today it's considered a classic. The other two noms Skippy and Trader Horn must've been milquetoast as I've never heard of them. I think that explains how a crummy movie like Cimarron could win best picture.

Attachments

 

How Green Was My Valley beat Citizen Kane and Sergeant York

1981 HK Film Awards - 'Boat People' beat Samo Hung's 'Prodigal Son'
1997 HK Film Awards - 'Comrades' beat First Strike

I loved The King's Speech (but I don't know the movies it was up against).

Who do you think should have won Best Actor?

Giant was my choice