I liked it but nope, somebody needed to have gone in there with the scissors and cut massive swathes out of it. Enjoyable but overblown.

I'd agree that Capote shouldn't have gotten in, it was that years Last King of Scotland, great main performance but nothing else of note.

It was something of a mess, but a beautiful mess at that, unlike say, Crash.

Still, Grizzly Man, Batman Begins, Pride & Prejudice, Wallace & Gromit, The Constant Gardner, Downfall (Disqualification be damned), Hustle & Flow, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Junebug, Nine Lives and Murderball all deserved a nom more.

I agree Loyal. King Kong should have been nominated. Can't believe the 5 films they ended up settling on. Last year was pretty craptacular for me.

Peace,
Mike.

Just No.

Maybe in the 70s or 80s or even the early 90s it would have got a nom but sadly not last year. I do think there were more than 5 better films last year than Kong - but it has that epic Best Pic feel that atleast one of the noms should have.

Very good film - though needed editing (especially the rampaging dinosaur scenes).

Bah.



None of that speaks to the quality of the film. Hell, fucking Babel has those characteristics (unless by 'epic,' you mean 'lots of money thrown at the screen' and/or ultra-violence). So did Alexander.

I recorded it in HD with my comcast box when it was on HBO.

After watching it again, I gotta say I enjoyed it more in an entertainment value then anything else, it really isnt oscar material, just a film thats far more superior then most popcorn films.

Not a chance, most definately not worthy.

Capote and Crash were unworthy as well but this is the oscars were talking about, they put crash on top, they suck major.

One of the biggest disapointments of 05. Only good thing in this movie was the action.

It deserved it over Crash, Brokeback, Capote (and maybe Munich), yes, I agree.

(A History of Violence and The New World deserved much more that nomination in my book.)

how bout watts performance she was amazing she made the film.

I agree, it deserved a Best Pic nod.

And Watts deserved a Best Actress.

It didnt deserve a bp, bd nomination IMO, i thought it dragged a lot, it started boring then it became fun when they arrived on the island and then it became boring again once they made it back to NY, i like the movie less everytime i see it.But it did deserve the techs it got, it was a very well made film, just not a good one.

Stop scaring me man.

If Kong desevre a best picture nomination, then so did Predator in 1987.

It was robbed i tell you, ROBBED!!!

It should've been nominated like 4000 times.

lol -- I know this thread can't have been intended seriously, but it is pretty funny to trying to imagine this bloated POS as best picture...

It would have been a better win than the craptacular Crash.

Peace,
Mike.

Predator was the best film of 1987 IMO.

That's kind of a scary way to judge a film's Best Picture merit.

Using that criteria, something like Alexander could have a case made for it.

I understand that that is often what the AMPAS look for in their Best Picture candidates, but that doesn't mean we should encourage it.

If a recent special effects-driven epic deserved a Best Pic nomination, it's Bryan Singer's underrated, beautiful Superman Returns, not the entertaining-but-bloated King Kong.

Kong's mammoth turds would win before that piece of crap.

Well, if you're just talking about actual quality of film, I'd take Good Luck over Kong, and be about even on Kong and Capote. They were both average.

Again, I get that a nod from the AMPAS is more due to a conglomeration of aspects that have nothing to do with the actual quality of the film, and in that case I could see why Kong might have deserved a nomination, but I don't think it's behavior we as film fans should embrace or justify in any manner.