2001's Oscar Nominees

Previous Oscar category polls:

Picture 1939: 1939's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1940: 1940's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1962: 1962's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1967: 1967's Oscar Nominees (inspired by "Pictures at a Revolution")
Picture 1969: 1969's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1970: 1970's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1971: 1971's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1973: 1973's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1974: 1974's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1975: 1975's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1976: 1976 Oscar Nominees
Picture 1977: 1977's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1979: 1979's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1980: 1980's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1982: 1982's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1989: 1989's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1990: 1990's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1991: 1991's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1993: 1993's Best Picture Oscar Nominees
Picture 1994: 1994's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1995: 1995's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1996: 1996's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1997: http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=40&threadid=76886
Picture 1998: 1998's Oscar Nominees
Picture 1999: 1999's Oscar Nominees
Picture 2005: 2005's Oscar Nominees
Picture 2007: 2007's Oscar Nominees
Picture 2011: 2011's Oscar Nominees
Picture 2012: 2012's Oscar Nominees
Picture 2013: 2013's Oscar Nominees
Picture 2014: 2014's Oscar Nominees
Picture 2015: 2015's Oscar Nominees
Picture 2016: 2016's Oscar Nominees
Worst Picture 80s: WORST of the Best Picture Oscar Noms (Only The '80s Edition)
Worst Picture 90s: WORST of the Best Picture Oscar Noms (Only the '90s Edition)
Worst Picture 00s: WORST of the Best Picture Oscar Noms (Only the '00s Edition ... except 2009)

Actress 1950: 1950 Best Actress Nominees
Actress 1992: Best Actress Nominees - 1992
Actress 1993: 1993's Best Actress Oscar Nominees
Actress 1996: 1996's Best Actress Oscar Nominees
Actress Overall 1990s: BEST of the Best Actress Oscar Noms (Only The '90s Edition)
Worst Actress Consistently Nominated: Who is the worst actress to have been consistently nominated for an Oscar?

Actor 1982: 1982's Best Actor Oscar Nominees
Actor 1997: 1997 Best Actor Oscar Winners
Actor Overall 1990s: BEST of the Best Actor Oscar Noms (Only The '90s Edition)
Worst Actor Consistently Nominated: Who is the worst actress to have been consistently nominated for an Oscar?

Supporting Actress 1976: 1976's Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominees

Song 2011: Oscar-nominated "Best Original Song" 2012

Legitimately only one of these films strikes me as an artistic statement, even if it annoyed me to no end back in '01.

yeah but once you get past some of the accents the whimsy of the hobbits and heroism of Aragorn really hits home.

Moulin Rouge: monument to ADD

I've never seen ABM and have no intention of doing so.

GP easily

Gosford Park is the only good movie in this lineup, but its derivative of an infinitely superior movie, whereas Moulin Rouge! (annoying as it is) is its own thing.

The other three are all varying shades of "do not count."

There aren't enough movies set during the War of the Ring imo.

but its derivative of an infinitely superior movie

iiiii give up?

Moulin Rouge! (annoying as it is) is its own thing.

This is not always a virtue, such as in this instance.

That's the best of the Rings movies, too.

Fellowship is definitely the most engaging, visually impressive and least dense of the LOTR films. That said, I'm queuing up Gosford Park for a rewatch tonight, since I haven't seen it since it was in theatres (I remember being less impressed with it than his spectacular one-two punch of The Player and Short Cuts in the 90s).

I thought In the Bedroom a watchable melodrama at the time, and then never thought about it again after that.

Threats of waterboarding couldn't make me watch Moulin Rouge again, or A Beautiful Mind once.

Renoir.

i wd give Luhrmann some credit up to, maybe including Moulin Rouge, but i don't ever want to sit thru all of it.

GP is the only one of these i can imagine wanting to watch again, Morbs is right about Fellowship but maybe that's just cos it doesn't have the same "FFS ENOUGH ALREADY" vibe that came later

the top two are clearly Gosford Park and LOTR. i give the edge to LOTR, though i think it's a shade below The Two Towers.

I'm a stan for Rules of the Game myself, so i think GP is a lesser version. but it is a good lesser version.

Hmmm, I don't see much besides a superficial resemblance to Rules there. They have different concerns.

Moulin Rouge is the film equivalent of a Trump casino.

i really like the way Altman treats the material in Gosford Park, i can imagine an English director making a stilted wax museum period piece that wd've been forgotten by now

i understand the writer did, it's called "Downton Abbey."

i was gonna say, yes. Fellowes is a complete Tory wanker tho.

man i could watch that gif forever

Gosford Park over In the Bedroom

Gosford Park, but only by default. Didn't care for In the Bedroom (I remember one critic saying it was in the tradition of the best American films from the '70s--that's a stretch), didn't like A Beautiful Mind at all (the book I liked; lots of math). Haven't seen the other two, not sure I could make it through Moulin Rouge. Much better: You Can Count on Me and The Virgin Suicides.

FOTR was good (according to teenage LJ) but Two Towers was so dull I never saw the last one

Both of those movies were from the previous year (VS is 1999, technically), but you're right, they're much better than anything here.

I'd have been totally fine with this as the actual and viable line-up (i.e. good-to-great American films that had a certain level of critical acclaim):

A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Gosford Park
Mulholland Drive
Ghost World
The Royal Tenenbaums

The Virgin Suicides was released in 2000, no matter what iMdB says.

My re-watch just confirmed: I liked Gosford Park about as much as I did back in 2001--which is to say, a solid Agatha Christie homage, but second-tier Altman.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

In the Bedroom ruined my Christmas in 2001. Not because it was depressing, but because it was bad and made me not want to watch any more movies that day I had to myself after working the morning shift my first Xmas back from college.

It's overdetermined, but it does what it needs done; that was my impression then. Super performances.

Unenthusiastically voted Fellowship of the Ring, mainly because it, in contrast to the next two, was less cartoonish, more character-oriented, visually interesting, and did not lean heavily on vast, endless CGI battles, featuring swarms of boogey men orcs.

Its nearest competitor was Gosford Park, a competent costume drama such as the BBC pumps out in industrial quantities. I once attempted to watch Moulin Rouge. The fragment I watched before bailing out was harrowing enough to last a lifetime. A Brilliant Mind was pure trademark Ron Howard pap. I never saw In the Bedroom.

Gosford Park is NOT a BBC costume drama -- the sophistication of the camera work and attention to ironies say otherwise. What's BBC hack work is the murder mystery.

I'm sorry, but sophisticated camera work is tertiary to whatever enjoyment I get from watching a film. Ironies can be had for tuppence a dozen on any corner of the internet.

sophisticated camera work is tertiary to whatever enjoyment I get from watching a film

Then stop fucking watching movies.

srsly

Sentence forthcoming.

You guys crack me up. srsly.

Am I supposed to pretend that each and every aspect of filmmaking is absolutely equal to every other aspect of filmmaking in terms of the enjoyment a film gives me? That's a hoot. If everyone were to "fucking stop watching movies" because they find camera work to be less interesting to them than, for example, story, dialogue, acting, lighting, sound design, set design, costumes, and pacing, then movies would stop being made, because they'd lose 99% of their audience.

Sure, camerawork is one small element of a good movie, but if the best thing you can say about a film is that it has sophisticated camera work, I consider that damning with faint praise.

You forgot to mention editing.

thnx. editing, too

Ironies can be had for tuppence a dozen on any corner of the internet.

― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:51 AM (two hours ago)

presumably there's something ironic about you repeatedly posting on threads to say you have little knowledge of or interest in something and then lecturing the rest of us about it

i think a beautiful mind is the film where at the end he gets a nobel prize and they spell it on the podium 'noble'
if so it gets my vote

If you find camera work 'tertiary' then I kinda think you have the wrong medium, as camera work is one of the few things that are unique to cinema. If you love acting, why not go to a theater play? It's honestly much more impressive seeing live. If you like good writing, why not read a book? If you like costumes and scenography, why not either go to a museum, or, like, go shopping?

Of course, film is also all those things, and can do it really well. And a great joy of cinema is that it has so many things to it. But it's not weird at all to like film for the stuff that is filmic. Although on the other hand, if something is described to me as 'sophisticated' I'm mostly running for the hills as well :)

Sure, camerawork is one small element of a good movie, but if the best thing you can say about a film is that it has sophisticated camera work, I consider that damning with faint praise.

― A is for (Aimless),

Aimless, you're a good man. Please stop posting in this thread.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

You all no doubt realize that the most popular and lucrative movies being made today consist in large part of a camera filming one or more actors in front of green screen? This fact may not make an impression on any of your own evaluation of a film, but it ought to make it clear that to vast numbers of movie goers, sophisticated camera work is not a draw. So, please enjoy films in your way and in your own time, but the implication that your way is the only correct way to enjoy films doesn't really convince me of the error of my ways and your scorn doesn't leave me even slightly abashed. It takes all kinds to make a world.

Please stop posting in this thread.

Ok. Now I will.

Aimless, you're much too smart in the books and politics threads to assume a jus' folks posture in a film thread.

You ask me to stop posting, then you address me directly. I'm willing to address your point or stop posting, as you requested. Which would you prefer?

let's poll it

Let's compromise. You accept that cinematography and editing are two of the only first things that made the movies the movies.

I'll take Alfred's answer as definitive. He's earned my respect.