Every year, I have my favourite film in contention. Most years, I even have 2-3. Every once in a while, I'll love all 5.

But this year it seems I might be indifferent or even bored with all 5.

For me, I have to venture way way back in my way back machine to before some of you were even born for the last time this happened.

The year

1987

The films

Broadcast News
Fatal Attraction
Hope and Glory
The Last Emperor
Moonstruck

Please AMPAS, don't ruin my streak. Munich needs a Best Picture nomination. Hey, if you're really feeling helpful, there are several documentaries that ran circles around the best fiction Hollywood had to offer (I'll even forgive you for that F 9/11 mixup in the BP race). And don't ignore that lovable Kiwi's giant ape film. Besides, you have to at least have one film that was seen by the masses. And not depressing.

Thanks

I agree loyal. Most movies this year are pretty . I really hope Munich and King Kong at least get noms.

I'd say the worst since 1996. At least just as bad as 1996.

96?

I loved Shine and Secrets and Lies was very special.

Fargo is shite, there I said it.

Jerry Maguire is a classic and English Patient has somehow managed to grow on me, like mold.

here's a handy dandy reference for everyone to use for bitching purposes only

http://www.littlegoldenguy.com/nominati ... ?catid=101

Now I haven't seen Secrets and Lies, but The English Patient is the worst Best Picture winner in a long long time.

And Fargo is so overrated, it just makes me sad.

One person´s worst oscar season is another one´s best, I guess.

For the record, I though "Shine", "The english patient" and "Jerry Maguire" were quite crappy. Go figure.

So you think '96 was bad as well?

I doubt anyone could seriously call, pending final results, Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Good Night and Good Luck, Walk The Line, and Capote the best Oscar season.

Of course I can. Opinions, you know...

I though Fargo was good, but overrated. Really liked "Secrets and lies", though.

But I tend to get frustrated with Oscar movies. There had been years when I didn´t love - sometimes not even like - any of the nominees. In that sense, 1996 wasn´t so bad, I guess.

Last year was totall underwhelming for me, for example.

But are you being serious? Or did you only see those five films last year?

I actually just have seen one of those, but I had the chance to catch other in contention films I quite liked - "Constant gardener" and "Match point".

I don´t know if I´d like the other four - but in any case, It seems obvious to me that if we can not agree about the quality of many films (Jerry Maguire? Aaaarrggg...) , there is probably not going to be a great consensus about the quality of a certain movie year - as I have said, I think 1996´s Oscars sucked big time, for example.

I was okay with last year´, but if it wasn't for Sideways, it'd have been just as bad as this year.

The last year that was really great was 1999.

you just said 1996 wasn't so bad.

Can't say I disagree, although I think Brokeback is worth cheering for. To be fair though, I think 2001 was pretty dull...mind you I'm not really a Lord of the Rings fan, so I didn't have that much to root for.

Moonstruck. EGAD!

There. I've said it. *whew*

2005 has been a rotten, depressing year, but with the exception of Crash, most of the contenders range from pretty good to great. In other words, they are at least awarding the best of a really bad lot. So they deserve credit for that. And Crash doesn't really matter because there's always, ALWAYS a stinker in the lineup (Ray, Seabiscuit)....usually more than one (Finding Neverland, Mystic River).

The worst year? There's a trail of stinkers dating way back.

2002. Gangs was a mess, The Hours was a snore, The Pianist was well-made but didn't light my world on fire. I enjoyed the heck out of The Two Towers and Chicago, but 2 for 5 isn't a great batting average. In addition, ignoring Far From Heaven and Adaptation, especially the former, might make 2002 the worst.

2001. Awarding A Beautiful Mind Best Picture is the single worst call in recent memory. Better than LOTR? Than Gosford Park? Than In The Bedroom? For sheer despression, 2001 would be a viable contender for worst (Also, I really hate Moulin Rouge).

2000. Traffic, Crouching Tiger, and Erin Brockovich are excellent movies, although I think a BP nod was uncalled for in regards to the latter. Gladiator is a good action movie, a terrible, terrible choice for Best Picture. Chocolat is charming, but not Oscar material.

1999. This may be the winner. American Beauty? Ugh. The Cider House Rules? Not a BAD movie.... The Sixth Sense? It was alright. The Insider? Now that's an excellent movie. The Green Mile? THE GREEN FUCKING MILE? That 1.5 out of 5. One pathetic Oscar season.

1998 was solid. In 1997, Titanic and The Full Monty were criminal, and not awarding L.A. Confidential is far worse than that.

1996? I don't like Shine, but i do like the other four. 1995 was...interesting.

1994. Forrest Gump is utterly loathsome. Another rotten winner.

And on it goes.

I guess my point is, as much as I love the Oscars, I always walk away thinking "Goddamnit, those were terrible. Worst Oscars ever." But I keep coming back. I think 2005, despite a far worse year than most, has a BP lineup thats fairly typical, quality-wise. Not very good. Not the worst.

And yes, 1987 was complete bollocks.

Now I know that yoshue's film taste is an absolute opposite of mine. I mean like 100% opposite.

I loved all BP nominees of 1999, except for The Insider and I disliked CTHD and Traffic, but was rooting for Gladiator all the way.

I also thought that Forrest Gump was a very well-deserved Oscar winner.

Well, at least I agree that L.A. Confidential deserved the award in its year (but I still love Titanic)

Yosh, you might on your own with Gump.

2002 was a travesty. 25th Hour and Antowne Fisher got snubbed...and that is a fact. 2001 and 1999 had the potential to be a great years, but the best film was left out (Magnolia and Royal Tennabaums anyone).

I feel this year has the ability to draw a lot of people to smaller films. For instance, when a film like King Kong doesn't get nominated but Brokeback Mountain and Good Night and Luck are...people will ask why and go see them out of curiosty, instead of Grandma's Boy or Hostel (we hope).

One question, Did All the King's Men choose not to be in this years Oscar's Race because of the competition or production problems?

I hope that's true but then again, small doesn't equal quality. Balance is what's needed.

Capote over a film like Munich or Kong, that doesn't sit well with me.

See, I thought Capote was a better film than Munich OR Kong.

Lecter, you loved all the '99 nominees EXCEPT Insider? You're right; we truly are opposite human beings.

Switch in BM or GNGL or Crash.

Point being, where's the scope? Hollywood isn't about this. This isn't the fucking Indie Spirit Awards.

I kinda agree with Yoshue...

Pretty much EVERY year there's one or two I like a lot, one or two that i;m fine with but wouldnt make my top 10, and the rest (1-3) i either didnt like at all, or have ZERO desire to see.

This year will probably end up being the same

with this lineup
(Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Good Night and Good Luck, Walk The Line, and Capote )

Good Night, and Good Luck would be top ten stuff. Walk the Line was give or take, B/B+ish. Brokeback and Capote I havent seen (I honestly doubt the chances of my loving either, though) and Crash is C-/D. So 1 great, one good, one bad, one i dont really care to see (capote) and one i will see soon and figure out.

Just a very consistent inconsistency of quality.

For the record, though, Loyal, there are probably a lot of people that would be THRILLED with that lineup. Brkeback is being called #1 by many people; GNAGL is loved by everyone with their sanity intact; Crash is inexplicably loved with most people; Capote has it's backers; same with WLT (though not many)...So it wouldnt surprise me if certain people saw that line and thought "Wow, they're actually rewarding all these stellar small films, not just whatever makes the most money."