What have been your most unacceptable Osacar best picture winner since 2010?

Mine is pic related.
To me, It wasn't a masterpiece but just mediocre drama flick with good editing and horrible pacing.

Attached: 11423.jpg (282x179, 10K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=66cIeb_nNO4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The Artist is the worst

Pic related was a fucking travesty. Fincher and The Social Network got robbed BAD.

Honorable mention to Spotlight for being the most forgettable Best Picture winner of the 21st century, though.

Attached: poster.medium.jpg (450x600, 63K)

The Social Network is trash.

>muh allegorical rowing scene

the fishfucking one

Fuck off, you plebeian piece of shit. Let me guess, you would've voted for Inception? Fuck, casuals like you piss me off.

Kings speech was decent as long as you're interested in some European history.

The only ones I remember are Birdman and 12 Years a Slave.
And Birdman really did deserve Best Picture.

Shakespeare In Love

>since 2010

Best Picture means absolutely nothing. Most of the best films ever haven’t won any Oscars.

Come to think of it, RotK, Gladiator, No Country for Old Men, and Beautiful Mind are the only winners this millennia that actually stick out as memorable. Even the Departed, while a good film, wasn't especially iconic or excellent. Everything from past 2007 is irredeemable middlebrow NYT-core.

Every best picture winner since they expanded the list has been wrong. They literally awarded an HBO drama like Spotlight BEST PICTURE

Not really, there's not much fodder there for history buffs. It's more of a drama that happens to be set in a specific period.

King's Speech
The Artist
Argo
12 years a slave
Birdman
Spotlight
Moonlight
The Shape of Water

king's speech was ok but definitely not award worthy

i agree with you.
it didnt deserve as much praise as it did.
the sex scene wasnt even good.

>it was a good enough movie though.

If we are going back to 2000 than CRASH is the most irredeemable TRASH to win BP. This decade The King's Speech is the most aggressively mediocre, but I didn't hate it. Three Billboards would have been the worst, but dodged a bullet with that one.

decent gimmick movie, but that winning a best picture oscar was a joke

Completely agree, Crash isn't just not Oscar-worthy, it is a legitimately bad film. If they wanted to virtue signal that year, they should have picked Brokeback Mountain, but instead they chose race over homosexuality as the political issue.

everyone except Birdman and 12 Years a Slave

>it's a brokeback mountain and call me by your name gets robbed episode

the shape of water was fucking retarded it's the same plot as free willy except they have sex with the fish, blade runner 2049 should've won best picture

>Birdman really did deserve Best Picture
You misspelled Whiplash

Whiplash is akin to Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin. The regular people (post-mortem directors and audiences) love these because they are easy to understand and it is not too intellectual to the point of aggressively defeating investment, but hardly any of Whiplash or Potemkin builds like their later works. It is easy and forthright. They are rather intellectually made in how to stir emotion, but their addressing of ideas is humdrum in substitute.

>Moonlight
>The Artist
>Spotlight
>Shape of Water
>Argo

Honestly most "Best Pictures" were just 6/10 flickaroos

>Accessible movies don't deserve critical acclaim

Was Birdman accessible?

You could count on one hand the number of Best Picture winners since the mid '90s that are actually really good films

argo won best picture? wtf it was boring as fuck

>the absolute state of Hollywood

Yeah and I've haven't seen many people claim that was an issue with Birdman.

Are you one of those people that needed a guide on Reddit to understand Inception?

>Yeah and I've haven't seen many people claim that was an issue with Birdman.

How did so many miss the reality-piercing essence of Birdman then

Inception can be understood!?!?

Attached: 1495690801836.png (800x769, 126K)

Anons on Sup Forums are harsh.
>Harsh, harsh but fair.

Argo is a pleb filter

The difference is Brokeback Mountain is a very good film that happens to be about a tragic gay romance, while Crash is just dumb writing with hyperbolic acting and network TV level cinematography.

>watches movies for plots

>12 Years a Slave > Moonlight > The King's Speech > Spotlight > Argo > Birdman > The Shape of Water > The Artist

Not even a nigger but 12 Years a Slave and Moonlight were pretty good even if perhaps they didn't deserve to win. The Artist truly is garbage. One of the worst films to ever win best picture.

Spam this every time Moonlight is mentioned in a positive light
youtube.com/watch?v=66cIeb_nNO4

remember than Tom "literally-who" Hooper also won a Best Director Oscar for that.
Meanwhile many great directors never won anything or even got a nomination.

I actually bought In The Mood For Love on blu-ray a while back, but I haven't watched it. Is it any good?

I'd say Titanic, American Beauty, Gladiator, Return of the King, Million Dollar Baby, The Departed, No Country for Old Men, The Hurt Locker, 12 Years a Slave, Birdman, Moonlight and The Shape of Water are all at least top ten films of the year worthy.

>Asian cinema
Go watch theatre. It's the same thing.

>The Hurt Locker

Attached: 1520847309820.png (687x871, 942K)

Yeah it's great. One of the best films of the 21st Century imo.

The fuck is wrong with The Hurt Locker?

Birdman > The Shape of Water > Moonlight > Argo > The Artist > The King's Speech > 12 Years a Slave > Spotlight

Best film of 2009?

Hardly. It's alright, but didn't show me anything I haven't seen in a dozen war films before. I wish the focus was more on the defusing of bombs, because everything else that happened made me sleepy.

Best directed film of 2009?

Not at all. Kathryn Bigelow is a damn good director, but this is not even in the running for her best work. Shot in the same faux-documentarian style with a washed-out color palette and substantial grain, it looks like every other film about a modern war. Literally. I'm starting to have a hard time telling them apart. I said to myself "that's a cool shot" a bunch of times, but what does it say about the film's directing when the *insert shots* grab my attention and help tell the story more than what is supposed to be the substance?

Best screenplay of 2009?

That's just insulting. Too little character development. Simplistic character relationships. Banal amateurish dialogue. Sluggishly sad pacing. Main dramatic question is weak. And I didn't learn one god damn thing about explosive ordinance disposal. How am I supposed to be put into this character's shoes if I can't get into his head? The war is a drug theme is trite and not explored enough in any sort of detail. At best, this is the first draft of a 30-minute short, because there's not enough drama to carry it through feature length.

Best film editing of 2009?

Uh...what? I thought the editor was doing an actively shitty job with this.

Give it all the sound awards you want to, but it's no wonder this film is no longer discussed. The best part was hearing Ministry. I won't be revisiting.

And Blad Runner 2049 is like any sci-fi story about robots and slavery since the first one. Yeah it looks great but don't bullshit me like it's somehow more of an original story than a shape of Water

>2010 was eight years ago
I want to go back, lads.

It's forgettable af.

They seem to be getting better about that. This year's crop of Best Director nominees was really good.

Well said. I felt like I was missing something when I observed all the critical praise for this movie.

>This year's crop of Best Director nominees was really good.
I don't see anything special here.

Attached: lady bird looks an average flick 1.png (1700x903, 1.54M)

The canonization of Greta Gerwig for doing absolutely NOTHING of value only shows the lack of achievement by female hands and their catty attempts at historical revisionism

Who is that qt?

Aside from Inglorious Basterds, it was the best movie nominated for BP that year.

She was the token female nominee.

what about Riefenstahl

>judging a whole movie by one shitty low res screen shot

This.
Lady Bird is so well directed! There's a few colorful shots in there!

>There's a few colorful shots in there!
why do cinephiles love pretty pictures but hate cinematographers

Attached: morocco 1930 lee garmes 2.jpg (670x496, 84K)

She's overrated. There are much better female directors.

>Lynne Ramsay will never receive the recognition she deserves because she doesn't make capeshit and generic coming-of-age movies

Attached: [crying].gif (540x285, 2.96M)

Everything that won an award after NCFOM has varied from "Wow this is generic" to "Wow this is a travesty against cinema" with The Shape of Water as some fucked up fetish capstone of "progressive" values

Attached: DWn9CE3VoAEs3Zo.jpg (931x764, 122K)

Whiplash is shit

>love pretty pictures but hate cinematographers
because cinematographers at least the ones worth a damn are against pretty pictures

Attached: arthur edeson.jpg (177x230, 4K)

I liked the part when she kissed a woman. It was bold for a 1930 movie.

>Titanic
only for its grandiose production values
>Gladiator
I could list more than 30 films released in the year 2000 better than Gladiator
>Million Dollar Baby
good but way overrated
>The Shape of Water
just because it was a shitty year

There is no complex dialectical montage construction in any of Riefenstahl's work. Once again, she, a female, only gleamed superficialities from her influences. She was not consciously intelligent, she was an aesthete of dynamism, ultimately a poor and shallow dance choreographer. I am not an aesthete, I am an engineer. Conscious observer and constructive thinker. Females are only good when they're being told what to do. That's why you see more female actors than you do directors. The canonization of Riefenstahl for doing absolutely NOTHING of value only shows the lack of achievement by female hands and their catty attempts at historical revisionism.
Trimuph of the Will is shoddy propaganda built on the same rhetoric built 30 years before it just with a bigger budget. Tearing down a flag and putting up a new one. It only worked for those foolish enough to fall for it from the beginning, and that is why they failed. Now go ahead. Name a single original contribution by Leni Riefenstahl, otherwise known as the only pre-war female director liked by the dumb fucks that think Robert Flaherty is too boring. By the dumb fucks that think Maya Deren is noteworthy whatsoever.

Attached: eisenstein visual communication.gif (328x244, 3.46M)

the most unacceptable one i can think of was slumdog millionaire. the wrestler came out the same year, and mickey rorke lost to sean fucking penn because penn played some fag politician, and the wrestler wasn't even nominated for best picture. complete joke.

>12 Years a Slave > The Shape of Water > Moonlight > Birdman > The Artist > The King's Speech

Whiplash is nothing like Potemkin or other Eisenstein movies. Eisenstein loved formal experiments, Whiplash is a safe Hollywoodish drama.

except, you know, the token woman + minority choices

Griffith did it first!

Attached: 1501537279530.gif (460x352, 974K)

>Eisenstein loved formal experiments
Early amateur work. Basic acceleration, basic crosscuts, and basic match cuts. Eisenstein is capable of so much more.

Attached: october eisenstein announcement.gif (328x246, 2.86M)

I wish that were me

Why do cinephiles give Birth of a Nation half-star ratings yet give perfect ratings to Battleship Potemkin and Triumph of the Will?

because it's boring, DUH.

I think they are sisters.

Pretty much all his films are experiments. Potemkin is probably the most accessible from his early films, I think I prefer October or Old and New.

>/lbg/ leaves their containment thread
>thread turns to shit

Attached: RG0BS1U.gif (390x205, 1.98M)

Eisenstein's more of a great bore than a mad Russian.
October has the benefit of a great Shostakovitch score but nothing else, all the exact same boring pictures that plague the rest of his filmography

October 1 1/2 stars

except, you know, Get Out and Lady Bird were two of the best movies of last year Sup Forums

October is a great, radical spectacle.

>spectacle
How are cinephiles bored by it, then?

How is Eisenstein cutting fast yet maintaining lack of intensity?

Spectacle as anti-spectacle. Abstraction of context. October is Eisenstein finally beginning to understand Griffith.

GO watch GO seems like the message of the movie

>Spectacle as anti-spectacle.
Sounds familiar

Attached: la la land 2016 damien chazelle 4.jpg (2052x1024, 109K)

Birdman > Moonlight > TSoW > Argo > 12YaS > King's Speech > Spotlight > The Artist

>you don't think that a movie directed by a woman or a black guy should win an oscar, that's raicist
they were competent and interesting movies, but they didn't deserve a nom for best directing

shape of water is a mediocre "art" movie for marvel fans. Call me by your name was far and away the best picture last year, followed by It Comes at Night
>inb4 no monster! gotta have cgi monster for me to say it good movie!

>How is Eisenstein cutting fast yet maintaining lack of intensity?
This is your opinion. I guess Americans don't know history (or care about history) so a film showing the creation of the first socialist state wouldn't move them. For me it was powerful, intense and moving. And no, I'm not a communist.

I love this movie & I love Moose and Frog!

Maybe not, but you're definitely a faggot.

>powerful, intense, and moving
Movies. Late Eisenstein doesn't make movies. Eisenstein doesn't make entertainment.

>gay twink fantasy

>late Eisenstein
Yup, spectacles for the masses such as Alexander Nevsky or his unfinished Ivan the Terrible trilogy weren't entertainment. Do you just randomly use terms such as early/late X without actually watching the films?

prime Eisenstein*

Dovzhenko is even better than Eisenstein. If you know history or understand bolshevik propaganda it's hard to decipher Eisenstein's works. It's different with Dovzhenko.