The 67th Academy Awards | Retrospective 

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.

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

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

This was also the first year of the Critics Choice Awards too! So this was the first year of having 4 major precursors

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

same where the heck was he?

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.

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 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.

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

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

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)!

That’s extremely tricky on the one Hand 1927 is actually a pretty ionic yaer like 1994. But on the other hand A: because so many categories that don’t exist anymore , and it being the first ever ever entertainment awards show their were No precursors. That being said Sunrise was robbed best picture, and napoleon and matropolis should have gotten some sort of honorary best foreign film Award

I would like to see more classic years represented, too. It would require more research and watching a lot of movies the Oscar Expert has likely never seen. But that's the fun part anyway, right?

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 .

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

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.

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

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 RU-vid...!

@@rangergrrrl amen

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.

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.

That would be an interesting discussion mainly because of how much the BAFTAS loved Shrek,giving it a Best film and supporting actor nomination,as well got best adapted screenplay their too

Shrek actually won the BAFTA for Best Adapted Screenplay.

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.

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!

While I would not nominate it for best picture, "Forrest Gump" is very entertaining. It's a fable, not really a straight-forward drama, so you have to approach it with a certain sense of humor. I think the cast was wonderful, and the writing was witty. And the technical merits, like the VF/X and music, were all excellent. But I would agree there were better films that year. It was nice to see Robert Zemeckis win, as Expert mentioned in the video, who directed "Back to the Future" (1985) and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" (1988).

@@bryanismyname7583 not my cup of tea especially not the jingoistic glorification of warfare, the slut-shaming, or the the guy who says “hey man I’m a bumper sticker writer and I need a fresh idea”…glad you enjoyed it, I gotta say I prefer quiz show

Also Jennifer Jason Leigh was robbed, Mrs. Parker was great; she is one of the most snubbed actresses

@@grovers_paradise : Again, a fable (and what glorification? Jenny protests the war, Capt. Dan suffers from it and it touches on the upheaval but Forrest is oblivious to it). I liked "Quiz Show" too. Robert Redford was (he's retired) a good director, and "A River Runs Through It" is one of my favorites from the early '90s.

@@grovers_paradise : Jennifer Jason Leigh did eventually get an Oscar nod, though, for "The Hateful 8" and I think she should've won that year.

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.

Mine: (no condition) "Bullets Over Broadway" "Ed Wood" "Interview with the Vampire" "Legends of the Fall" (WINNER) "The Shawshank Redemption"